COURSE GUIDE

POL 343

THEORIES AND PRACTICE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Course Developer/Writer: Professor Kamal Bello

Department of Political Science
Faculty of Social Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria

Course Editor: Professor Anyebe, Adam Adem

Department of Public Administration
Ahmadu Bello University,
Zaria.

Course Coordinator: Ifeyinwa M. Ogbonna-Nwaogu

Department of Political Science
Faculty of Social Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria
Abuja.

Programme Leader: Aminu Umar (Ph.D)

Department of Political Science
Faculty of Social Sciences
National Open University of Nigeria
Abuja.

1
CONTENTS

MODULE 1: CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

Unit 1: Administration
Unit 2: Management
Unit 3: Organisation
Unit 4: Public Administration

MODULE 2: POLITICS/POLICY/ADMINISTRATION DICHOTOMY

Unit 1: Administration and Politics
Unit 2: Inter play of Political Institutions and Administration
Unit 3: Institutional Setting and Administration
Unit 4: Decision Making in Administration
Unit 5: Personnel Administration

MODULE 3: SELECTED THEORIES OF ADMINISTRATION I

Unit 1: Scientific Management Theory
Unit 2: Bureaucratic Management Theory
Unit 3: Functional Management Theory
Unit 4: Human Relations Movement

MODULE 4: SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE THEORIES II

Unit 1: Administrative Management Theory
Unit 2: Behavioral Science Theory
Unit 3: Systems Theory
Unit 4: Group Theory

MODULE 5: SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE THEORIES III

Unit 1: Elite Theory
Unit 2: Radical Marxist Theory
Unit 3: New Public Management
Unit 4: Chinese Developing Bureaucracy
MODULE 1: CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

MODULE 1 Unit 1: Administration

1.0 Introduction
The thrust of this unit is to identify and operationalise the concept of
administration. This is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions
and ambiguities surrounding the concept of administration arising from the
multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore,
expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
a. Understand the different descriptions of administration,
b. Describe the differences between public and private administration,
c. Explain the similarities between public and private administration, and
d. Discuss the ecology of administration

Main Contents
Description of Administration
Administration is a universal practice and is also of universal importance
(Adebayo, 1984). It is said to commence immediately two people agree to co-
operate to undertake a task which none of them can take alone. According to
Nwosu (1985, p.3);
Administration is…inevitable in any given situation where a piece
of work has to be done, and this piece of work requires the effort of
more than one person to accomplish it. We are involved in
administrative behavior when we co-operate with other people to
accomplish such objectives as erecting a community town hall,
constructing and managing schools, hospitals, vehicles, assembly
plants.

Thus, administration exists whenever people co-operate to achieve the goals of

their groups and such achievements require planning, organization, command,
co-operation and control. It involves the mobilization, development and
direction of human and material resources to attain the specified objectives.
When viewed from this perspective, certainly administration is rightly
considered a very old and global phenomenon which exists even in the most
basic human group. We may therefore define administration as the capacity to
co-ordinate and execute many and often conflicting social demands in a single
organism so perfectly that they should all operate as a unit (Adebayo, 1984).
Increasingly, those definitions and explanations, among others point to the fact
that administration is both public and private. Furthermore, there is another
sense in which the term administration may be used. This is in the sense
whereby the term administration is used to refer to senior personnel in the
executive branch of government. It is in this sense that the term is employed
when people speak of the “Shagari Administration”, “Babangida
Administration”, “Obasanjo Administration” etc. In whatever sense it is used,
administration has a long history which dates back to the beginning of the
history of mankind with research revealing administrative tasks and practices
since recorded history. Indications are that what we have today as modern
systems of administration have emerged, in one way or the other, from the old
practices and experiences of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, the Greeks and
Romans and much later from the Christian Church and the German Cameralists
of the Middle Ages.

Differences between Private and Public Administration

Administration usually takes place within an organisation, for example in
churches, mosques schools, universities, companies, and government
departments and agencies. While some of the organisations are recognised as
public organisations, others are identified as private organisations. Public
organisations are those which are concerned with the attainment of the aims of
the government or the state. Among such organisations are ministries,
corporations, companies and parastatals. Most of the time public sector
organisations are established to provide services to the people at no cost directly
on them, or such services may be provided at subsidized cost.

The term private sector is often used as a collective phrase to refer to

organisations which are neither state-owned nor operating specifically to
achieve state goals. Examples of those include privately owned or public-quoted
companies like Lever Brothers Plc; Mobil Nigeria Plc, Texaco, United Bank
For Africa (UBA), etc. Other such privately owned organisations are
humanitarian groups and those known as Non-Govermental Organisations
(NGOs). Administration within these two categories of organisation i.e. public
and private different in a number of important respects which are discussed as
follows:
(i) The principle of “to whose benefit”; Public organisations are expected to
promote the overall public interest. Accordingly, the public as a whole is the
major beneficiary of any public organisation, no matter what its functions are;
e.g. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Water Corporation. With respect to private
organisations, except humanitarian organisations like the Red Cross, Red
Crescent, or Advocacy Groups such as Civil/Human Rights Organisations, the
major objective of private administration is to maximize profit or other goals of
the owner(s) or group(s). In effect, the main beneficiary of the private
organisation is the individual owner or private group.
(ii) Focus on service or profit: The overriding aim of most private
organisations is to make profit. Accordingly, administration within such
organisations is concerned with the management of men and materials to attain
private aims, usually the maximisation of profit. This is not the case with
administration in public organisations. The primary purpose administration in
public organisation is service to the public. Even when government establishes
agencies which undertake commercial activities such as electricity,
telecommunication, and transportation, the major aim of such enterprises is to
provide service. Profit is accorded a secondary place.
(iii) Accountability and measure of Success: Private organisations are usually
established and financed by individuals, and groups. Administration within
private organisations is answerable to the owners and its success or efficiency is
usually measured in terms of the amount of profit it makes. By contrast, public
organisations are usually established by the acts of the parliament or orders of
the executive arm of government. The goals of the organisations are expected to
reflect the needs and aspirations of the citizens. Besides, public organisations
are supported with public funds. For these reasons, public officials who manage
public organisations are made accountable to the public The parliament, the
press, and even ordinary citizens have the right to inquire into the activities of
such public officials in order to ensure that the public purpose is served, and
that resources are not misappropriated. It is to be noted also that while
efficiency can easily be measured in private organisations by reference to profit,
this is not so in most public organisations. Indeed, it is not possible to measure
the profitability of some of the services provided by public agencies because of
the nature of such services. Furthermore, in order to promote public welfare,
government often undertakes unprofitable projects or provides services at
subsidised rates.
(iv) Level of complexity: It has been suggested that public administration is
more complex than private administration. The reason for this viewpoint is that
public agencies much more than private organisations need to respond to more
conflicting demands of the public. For instance, public administration is
required to respond to demands for fair treatment of citizens, representation of
different sectors of the society in addition to efficient provision of services.
These demands are too many to be responded to at the same time.
(v) Organisational procedure: The process of administration in government
organisations is much slower when compared with the process in private
organisations. This is the problem that people refer to when they accuse public
agencies of ‘red-tape’. For instance, the processes of hiring, promoting and
disciplining staff are usually very sluggish in public agencies. Public
organisations also respond more slowly to the wishes of the people. One major
reason for the delays in procedure is the need to ensure adherence to established
rules and to protect public funds.

(Vi) Public administration is usually engaged in providing services and in some

cases goods whose scope and variety are determined not by direct wishes of the
people but by the decision of government while the private sector services are
voluntary.

Similarities Between Public and Private Administration

In spite of the differences between them, administration in the public and
private sectors share important similarities. Administration in both sectors
requires effective mobilisation and use of human and material resources to
achieve specified goals. Both public and private administrators face the
challenge of regularly reviewing their goals in the context of existing resources.
1. Although profit still remains the critical focus of private organisations, they
are also being urged to ‘treat employees fairly and take account of the effect
of the firms’ activity on the community it serves and, the environment, in
which it functions. For instance, oil-prospecting companies are now being
pressured to contribute more meaningfully to the development of their host
communities.
2. Many private organisations have grown greatly in size, numerous businesses
raise their capital from the public through the Stock Exchange, and the
management of these firms is in the hands of professionals who are different
from the shareholders. For instance, the administration of companies such as
the UAC, Lever Brothers, etc. is undertaken by managers who may not be
shareholder in the companies These developments come to mean that
administration in the private sector has grown in complexity and is also
sometimes marked by ‘red-tapism.’ as in the public sector. In recent times,
governments have adopted many management practices that were hitherto
exclusive to private business organization. Government adoption of private
management practices is as a result of changing times, particularly rapid
changes in technology which government bureaucracy cannot ignore. Some
of these changes are also brought about by the environment under which
public administration takes place. We may now examine those
environmental influences under “ecology” of administration.

Ecology of Administration
Ecology of administration examines all the natural, historical, socio-cultural and
religious factors, and other significant national experiences which could have in
one way or the other influenced the growth and development of public
administration. In the case of Nigeria, the first influence arose from British
colonialism. The fact that Britain colonised Nigeria and established British
public service structure and procedures in the administration of the colonial
territory influenced the growth and development of public administration in
Nigeria. Indeed, it was the colonial public administration which managed the
colonial territory (Nigeria) from about 1861 to 1954 when regional governments
were created, and made the territory to operate federal structure. Thus, the
public services of the then regional governments from 1954 to 1960, and up to
1966, were direct offshoots of the early British colonial public service
administrative structure in terms of ethics or values, culture and tradition,
training, procedures and espirit de corp associated with the public service.
Nigeria’s socio cultural conditions or the social Setting made up of very many
ethnic and cultural groups, and many languages also have affected the growth
and development of public administration in Nigeria. Those factors have created
problems of balancing management and control in the public service. In fact,
they are partly responsible for the problem of nepotism, and tribalism often
associated with the management of the public service in Nigeria.

Another influence on the public administration, closely related to social setting,

is Nigeria’s federal structure adopted in the 1954 Lyttleton Constitution. That
constitution was largely responsible for the regionally oriented development of
the public service administrative structure. The federal structure enabled the
creation of federal and regional services, and also the regional outlook and
consciousness of the services, particularly from 1960 to 1966.

The civil war of 1967 to 1970 was another significant influence on public
administration in Nigeria. The impact of the war was felt in all segments of the
Nigerian society: At the end of the War, the military apparently had such power
and authority in the federation which could not be easily challenged by any of
the constituents of the federation. That enabled the military to establish what
was called a results-oriented and unified grade structure public service for the
entire country through the recommendations of the 1974 Public Service Review
Commission (Udoji Commission). That public service reform has continued
influence on the structure and procedures of public administration in Nigeria till
date.

Even at the level of the private sector administration, there was also the
influence of capitalist mode of production, the capitalist values “profit and loss”
“demand and supply”, “market forces” etc. which have determined management
at the area of private business administration. Thus, till this day, capitalist
values and mode of production still dictate the dynamics of business
organisation and practice in Nigeria. Also to a very large extent, all these
considerations have influenced the nature and scope of public administration as
it is studied in Nigeria, and indeed in the rest of the world.
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to operationalise the basic concepts that are
central to understanding administration. The learner has been exposed to the
basic facts that there are various definitions of the concepts as presented by
various scholars. Despite the multidimentional and multidisciplinary approach
to the concept certain key characteristics are paramount.

5.0Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to conceptualise administration, the
differences and similarities between public and private administration and
ecology of administration.

6.0Tutor –marked Assignment

1. What is administration?
2. Attempt a historical sketch of the development of the discipline.
3. Make a distinction between private and public administration.
4. What is ecology of administration?
 Unit 2: Management

1.0Introduction
The thrust of this unit is to identify and operationalise the concept of
management, types of management, scope of management and historical
development of management. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the concept of management arising
from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore,
expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
a. Identify the different descriptions of management,
b. Describe the different types of management,
c. Explain the scope of management, and
d. Narrate the history of management.

Main Contents
Description of Management
One of the relative confusions that strike every scholar is the seeming synonyms
between the concepts of administration and management. This is because a lot
of works seem to portray both concepts in the same light. It has become
common to use administration and management inter-changeably. A lot of
scholars tend to think that to administer is to ‘manage’. This is to say the words
are different but they have the same meaning. To a large extent this is literally
true. However, there is slight distinction between the concepts. This distinction
can be located within institutional and operational usage. Public administration
and public sector prefers the word "administration" while in the private sector
the word ‘manager’ is preferred (Aghayere, 1995). Administration generally
refers to the top executive functions while on the other hand management
relates to the process of operational supervision. It can be used to refer to all
people who supervise at various levels. The administrator views the
organization in macro or strategic terms, he formulates policies and must
possess the ability to coordinate or relate organizational variables to achieve
desired over all goals. On the other hand, the manager implements policies
formulated by the administrator. Operative managers in all cases require
technical skills. Technical skill is less emphasized in the case of an
administrator. The most required skill is the conceptual skill.

Both administrators and managers are obsessed with the question of efficiency
and effectiveness; that is how best to achieve organizational objectives. Thus,
no matter the nature of what is being discussed whether it is administrative or
management theory, it invariable boils down to the same thing i.e. the proper
structuring of organization in its capacity to function effectively (Adamolekun,
2002).

The English verb "manage" comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle,
especially tools or a horse), which derives from the
two Latin words manus (hand) and agere (to act). The French word for
housekeeping, ménagerie, derived from ménager ("to keep house";
compare ménage for "household"), also encompasses taking care of domestic
animals. Ménagerie is the French translation of Xenophon's famous
book Oeconomicus (Greek: Οἰκονομικός) on household matters and husbandry.
The French word mesnagement (or ménagement) influenced the semantic
development of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Management or managing is the administration of an organization, whether it is

a business, a not-for-profit organization, or government body. Management
includes the activities of setting the strategy of an organization and coordinating
the efforts of its employees (or of volunteers) to accomplish
its objectives through the application of available resources, such
]
as financial, natural, technological, and human resources. The term
"management" may also refer to those people who manage an organization.
Social scientists study management as an academic discipline, investigating
areas such as social organization and organizational leadership. Some people
study management at colleges or universities; major degrees in management
include the Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.) and Master of Business
Administration (MBA.) and, for the public sector, the Master of Public
Administration (MPA) degree. Individuals who aim to become management
specialists or experts, management researchers, or professors may complete
the Doctor of Management (DM), the Doctor of Business
Administration (DBA), or the PhD in Business Administration or Management.
According to Henri Fayol, "to manage is to forecast and to plan, to organise, to
command, to co-ordinate and to control."Fredmund Malik defines it as "the
transformation of resources into utility." Management included as one of the
factors of production – along with machines, materials and money. Ghislain
Deslandes defines it as “a vulnerable force, under pressure to achieve results
and endowed with the triple power of constraint, imitation and imagination,
operating on subjective, interpersonal, institutional and environmental levels”.
Peter Drucker (1909–2005) saw the basic task of management as
twofold: marketing and innovation. Nevertheless, innovation is also linked to
marketing (product innovation is a central strategic marketing issue). Peter
Drucker identifies marketing as a key essence for business success, but
management and marketing are generally understood as two different branches
of business administration knowledge. Administration has an input-dominated
structure with output being only incidental. In trying to control everything, the
administrators become so obsessed with how things should be done that they
ignore result.

Types of Management
Larger organizations generally have three levels of managers, which are
typically organized in a hierarchical, pyramid structure:

1. Senior managers, such as members of a Board of Directors and a Chief

Executive Officer (CEO) or a President of an organization. They set the
strategic goals of the organization and make decisions on how the overall
organization will operate. Senior managers are generally executive-level
professionals, and provide direction to middle management who directly or
indirectly report to them.

2.Middle managers, examples of which would include branch managers,

regional managers, department managers and section managers, provide
direction to front-line managers. Middle managers communicate the strategic
goals of senior management to the front-line managers.

3.Lower managers, such as supervisors and front-line team leaders, oversee the
work of regular employees (or volunteers, in some voluntary organizations) and
provide direction on their work.
In smaller organizations, an individual manager may have a much wider scope.
A single manager may perform several roles or even all of the roles commonly
observed in a large organization.

Scope of Management
Numerous theories as regard to how best to design an organization, how
organization should be structured and how it can function better to guarantee
goals achievements have been postulated at various times by various theorists
based on their experiences and predicaments. While some theories are more in
use today than others, each has been an important source of inspiration for
administrators and managers and together they form the basis for the knowledge
of management theory.
Management involves identifying the mission, objective, procedures, rules and
manipulation of the human capital of an enterprise to contribute to the success
of the enterprise. This implies effective communication: an enterprise
environment (as opposed to a physical or mechanical mechanism) implies
human motivation and implies some sort of successful progress or system
outcome. As such, management is not the manipulation of a mechanism
(machine or automated program), not the herding of animals, and can occur
either in a legal or in an illegal enterprise or environment. From an individual's
perspective, management does not need to be seen solely from an enterprise
point of view, because management is an essential function to improve
one's life and relationships. Management is therefore everywhere and it has a
wider range of application. Based on this, management must have humans.
Communication and a positive endeavor are two main aspects of it either
through enterprise or independent pursuit. Plans, measurements, motivational
psychological tools, goals, and economic measures (profit, etc.) may or may not
be necessary components for there to be management. At first, one views
management functionally, such as measuring quantity, adjusting plans,
meeting goals. This applies even in situations where planning does not take
place. From this perspective, Henri Fayol (1841–1925) considers management
to consist of six functions:

1. forecasting
2. planning
3. organizing
4. commanding
5. coordinating
6. controlling
According to Fayol, management operates through five basic functions:
planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling.

a. Planning: Deciding what needs to happen in the future and generating

plans for action (deciding in advance).
b. Organizing (or staffing): Making sure the human and nonhuman
resources are put into place.
c. Coordinating: Creating a structure through which an organization's goals
can be accomplished.
d. Commanding (or leading): Determining what must be done in a situation
and getting people to do it.
e. Controlling: Checking progress against plans.

1. Interpersonal: roles that involve coordination and interaction with

employees. Figurehead, leader
2. Informational: roles that involve handling, sharing, and analyzing
information. Nerve centre, disseminator
3. Decision: roles that require decision-making. Entrepreneur, negotiator,
allocator
Management skills include:

i. political: used to build a power base and to establish connections

ii. conceptual: used to analyze complex situations
iii. interpersonal: used to communicate, motivate, mentor and delegate
iv. diagnostic: ability to visualize appropriate responses to a situation
v. leadership: ability to lead and to provide guidance to a specific group
vi. technical: expertise in one's particular functional area.
vii. Behavioral: perception towards others.

a. All policies and strategies must be discussed with all managerial

personnel and staff.
b. Managers must understand where and how they can implement their
policies and strategies.
c. A plan of action must be devised for each department.
d. Policies and strategies must be reviewed regularly.
f. Contingency plans must be devised in case the environment changes.
g. Top-level managers should carry out regular progress assessments.
h. The business requires team spirit and a good environment.
i. The missions, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of each department
must be analyzed to determine their roles in achieving the business's
mission.
j. The forecasting method develops a reliable picture of the business' future
environment.
k. A planning unit must be created to ensure that all plans are consistent and
that policies and strategies are aimed at achieving the same mission and
objective

In another way of thinking, Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), allegedly defined

management as "the art of getting things done through people". She described
management as philosophy. Critics, however, find this definition useful but far
too narrow. The phrase "management is what managers do" occurs
widely, suggesting the difficulty of defining management without circularity,
the shifting nature of definitions and the connection of managerial
practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or of a class.
One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business
administration" and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as
for example in charities and in the public sector. More broadly, every
organization must "manage" its work, people, processes, technology, etc. to
maximize effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to university
departments that teach management as "business schools". Some such
institutions (such as the Harvard Business School) use that name, while others
(such as the Yale School of Management) employ the broader term
"management".
English-speakers may also use the term "management" or "the management" as
a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of
a corporation. Historically this use of the term often contrasted with the
term "labor" – referring to those being managed. But in the present era the
concept of management is identified in the wide areas and its frontiers have
been pushed to a broader range. Apart from profitable organizations even non-
profitable organizations (NGOs) apply management concepts. The concept and
its uses are not constrained. Management on the whole is the process of
planning, organizing, coordinating, leading and controlling.
In profitable organizations, management's primary function is the satisfaction of
a range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the
shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and
providing great employment opportunities for employees. In nonprofit
management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models
of management and governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors,
and the board then hires senior management. Some organizations have
experimented with other methods (such as employee-voting models) of
selecting or reviewing managers, but this is rare.

Historical Development of Management

Some see management as a late-modern (in the sense of late modernity)
conceptualization. On those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history - only
harbingers (such as stewards). Others, however, detect management-like
thought among ancient Sumerian traders and the builders of the pyramids
of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries faced the problems of
exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes unenthusiastic or recalcitrant
workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did not
feel compelled to face the issues of management systematically.
However, innovations such as the spread of Hindu numerals (5th to 15th
centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494)
provided tools for management assessment, planning and control.
Machiavelli wrote about how to make organisations efficient and effective. The
principles that Machiavelli set forth in Discourses (1531) can apply in adapted
form to the management of organisations today. An organisation is more stable
if members have the right to express their differences and solve their conflicts
within it. While one person can begin an organisation, "it is lasting when it is
left in the care of many and when many desire to maintain it". A weak manager
can follow a strong one, but not another weak one, and maintain authority. A
manager seeking to change an established organization "should retain at least a
shadow of the ancient customs". With the changing workplaces of industrial
revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries, military theory and practice
contributed approaches to managing the newly-popular factories.
Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized
record-keeping and recording before the industrial revolution, it made sense for
most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out management functions by
and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations, a
distinction between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups
of shareholders) and day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning
and control) gradually became more common.

Management (according to some definitions) has existed for millennia, and

several writers have produced background works that have contributed to
modern management theories. Some theorists have cited ancient military texts
as providing lessons for civilian managers. For example, Chinese general Sun
Tzu in his 6th-century BC work The Art of War recommends (when re-phrased
in modern terminology) being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses
of both a manager's organization and a foe's. The writings of influential Chinese
Legalist philosopher Shen Buhai may be considered to embody a rare pre-
modern example of abstract theory of management.
Various ancient and medieval civilizations produced "mirrors for princes"
books, which aimed to advise new monarchs on how to govern. Plato described
job specialization in 350 BC, and Alfarabi listed several leadership traits in AD
900. Other examples include the Indian Arthashastra by Chanakya (written
around 300 BC), and The Prince by Italian author Niccolò Machiavelli (c.
1515).
Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of
Nations discussed efficient organization of work through division of
labour. Smith described how changes in processes could boost productivity in
the manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200 pins per day,
Smith analyzed the steps involved in manufacture and, with 10 specialists,
enabled production of 48,000 pins per day.
Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723–1790) and John Stuart
Mill (1806–1873) provided a theoretical background to resource-
allocation, production, and pricing issues. About the same time, innovators
like Eli Whitney (1765–1825), James Watt (1736–1819), and Matthew
Boulton (1728–1809) developed elements of technical production such
as standardization, quality-control procedures, cost-accounting,
interchangeability of parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects of
management existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US economy.
That environment saw 4 million people, as the contemporary usages had it,
"managed" in profitable quasi-mass production. Salaried managers as an
identifiable group first became prominent in the late 19th century.
By about 1900 one finds managers trying to place their theories on what they
regarded as a thoroughly scientific basis (see scientism for perceived limitations
of this belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's Science of management in
the 1890s, Frederick Winslow Taylor's The Principles of Scientific
Management (1911), Lillian Gilbreth's Psychology
of Management(1914), Frank and
Lillian Gilbreth's Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's charts
(1910s). J. Duncan wrote the first college management-textbook in
1911. In 1912 Yoichi
Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan and became the first management
consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son Ichiro Ueno pioneered
Japanese quality assurance.
The first comprehensive theories of management appeared around
1920. The Harvard Business School offered the first Master of Business
Administration degree (MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841–1925)
and Alexander Church(1866-1936) described the various branches of
management and their inter-relationships. In the early-20th century, people like
Ordway Tead (1891–1973), Walter Scott (1869-1955) and J. Mooney applied
the principles of psychology to management. Other writers, such as Elton
Mayo (1880–1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), Chester Barnard (1886–
1961), Max Weber(1864–1920), who saw what he called the "administrator"
as bureaucrat, Rensis Likert (1903–1981), and Chris Argyris(born 1923)
approached the phenomenon of management from a sociological perspective.
Peter Drucker (1909–2005) wrote one of the earliest books on applied
management: Concept of the Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted
from Alfred Sloan (chairman of General Motors until 1956) commissioning a
study of the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39 books, many in the same
vein.
H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890–1962), and Thornton C. Fry introduced
statistical techniques into management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick
Blackett worked in the development of the applied-
mathematics science of operations research, initially for military operations.
Operations research, sometimes known as "management science" (but distinct
from Taylor's scientific management), attempts to take a scientific approach to
solving decision-problems, and can apply directly to multiple management
problems, particularly in the areas of logistics and operations.
Some of the more recent developments include the Theory of
Constraints, management by objectives, reengineering, Six Sigma, the Viable
system model, and various information-technology-driven theories such as agile
software development, as well as group-management theories such as Cog's
Ladder.
As the general recognition of managers as a class solidified during the 20th
century and gave perceived practitioners of the art/science of management a
certain amount of prestige, so the way opened for popularised systems of
management ideas to peddle their wares. In this context many management
fads may have had more to do with pop psychology than with scientific theories
of management.
Towards the end of the 20th century, business management came to consist of
six separate branches, namely; financial management, human resource
management, information technology management (responsible
for management information systems), marketing management, operations
management and production management and strategic management

In the 21st century, observers find it increasingly difficult to subdivide

management into functional categories in this way. More and more processes
simultaneously involve several categories. Instead, one tends to think in terms
of the various processes, tasks, and objects subject to management. Branches of
management theory also exist relating to nonprofits and to government: such
as public administration, public management, and educational management.
Further, management programs related to civil-society organizations have also
spawned programs in nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship. Note
that many of the assumptions made by management have come under attack
from business-ethics viewpoints, critical management studies, and anti-
corporate activism.
As one consequence, workplace democracy (sometimes referred to as Workers'
self-management) has become both more common and more advocated, in some
places distributing all management functions among workers, each of whom
takes on a portion of the work. However, these models predate any current
political issue, and may occur more naturally than does a command hierarchy.
All management embraces to some degree a democratic principle—in that in the
long term, the majority of workers must support management. Otherwise, they
leave to find other work or go on strike. Despite the move toward workplace
democracy, command-and-control organization structures remain commonplace
as de facto organization structures. Indeed, the entrenched nature of command-
and-control is evident in the way that recent layoffs have been conducted with
management ranks affected far less than employees at the lower levels. In some
cases, management has even rewarded itself with bonuses after laying off
lower-level workers. According to leadership-academic Manfred F.R. Kets de
Vries, a contemporary senior-management team will almost inevitably have
some personality disorders.
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to operationalise the basic concepts that are
central to understanding management, its types, scope and history. The learner
has been exposed to the basic facts that there are various definitions of the
concepts as presented by various scholars. Despite the multidimentional and
multidisciplinary approach to the concept certain key characteristics are
paramount.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to conceptualise management, its types,
scope and historical development.
 Unit 3: Organisation

1.0Introduction
The thrust of this unit is to identify and operationalise the concept of
organisation, types of organisation, characteristics of organization, theories of
organization, leadership, its skills and styles as well as leadership theories. This
is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions and ambiguity
surrounding the concept of organisation arising from the multicultural and
multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore, expected to give the unit
maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
a. Identify the different descriptions of organisation,
b. Describe the different types of organization,
c. Explain the characteristics of organization,
d. Describe leadership and its skills and styles, and
e. Discuss the theories of leadership.

3.0Main Contents
3.1Description of Organisation
Organisation is defined in many ways and 'each definition tries to reflect a
particular perspective which scholars adopt about organisations, One of such
definitions views organisation as “a highly rationalized and impersonal
integration of a large number of specialists cooperating to achieve some
announced specific objective” Another definition sees organisation as a system
of consciously co-ordinated personal activities or forces of two or more persons.
Yet another view defines organisation as a continuing system of differentiated
and co-ordinated human activities utilizing, transferring, and welding together a
specific set of human;' material, capital, land natural resources into a unique,
problem solving whole, whose function is to satisfy particular human needs in
interaction with other systems of human activities and resources in its particular
environment.
Sociology can be defined as the science of the institutions of modernity; specific
institutions serve a function, akin to the individual organs of a coherent body. In
the social and political sciences in general, an organisation may be more loosely
understood as the planned, coordinated and purposeful action of human beings
working through collective action to reach a common goal or construct a
tangible product. This action is usually framed by formal membership and form
(institutional rules). Sociology distinguishes the term organisation into planned
formal and unplanned informal (i.e. spontaneously formed) organisations.
Sociology analyses organisations in the first line from an institutional
perspective. In this sense, organisation is an enduring arrangement of elements.
These elements and their actions are determined by rules so that a certain task
can be fulfilled through a system of coordinated division of labour.
Economic approaches to organisations also take the division of labour as a
starting point. The division of labour allows for (economies of) specialisation.
Increasing specialisation necessitates coordination. From an economic point of
view, markets and organisations are alternative coordination mechanisms for the
execution of transactions.
An organisation is defined by the elements that are part of it (who belongs to the
organisation and who does not?), its communication (which elements
communicate and how do they communicate?), its autonomy (which changes
are executed autonomously by the organisation or its elements?), and its rules of
action compared to outside events (what causes an organisation to act as a
collective actor?).
By coordinated and planned cooperation of the elements, the organisation is
able to solve tasks that lie beyond the abilities of the single elements. The price
paid by the elements is the limitation of the degrees of freedom of the elements.
Advantages of organisations are enhancement (more of the same), addition
(combination of different features) and extension. Disadvantages can be
inertness (through co-ordination) and loss of interaction.
An organization is an entity comprising multiple people, such as
an institution or an association, that has a particular purpose. The word is
derived from the Greek word organon, which means "organ". There are a
variety of legal types of organisations,
including corporations, governments, non-governmental organisations, political
organisations, international organisations, armed forces, charities, not-for-profit
corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, and educational institutions. A hybrid
organisation is a body that operates in both the public sector and the private
sector simultaneously, fulfilling public duties and developing commercial
market activities. A voluntary association is an organisation consisting of
volunteers. Such organisations may be able to operate without legal formalities,
depending on jurisdiction, including informal clubs. Organisations may also
operate secretly or illegally in the case of secret societies, criminal
organisations and resistance movements.
Committees or juries
These consist of a group of peers who decide as a group, perhaps by voting. The
difference between a jury and a committee is that the members of the committee
are usually assigned to perform or lead further actions after the group comes to
a decision, whereas members of a jury come to a decision. In common
law countries, legal juries render decisions of guilt, liability and quantify
damages; juries are also used in athletic contests, book awards and similar
activities. Sometimes a selection committee functions like a jury. In the Middle
Ages, juries in continental Europe were used to determine the law according to
consensus among local notables.
Committees are often the most reliable way to make decisions. Condorcet's jury
theorem proved that if the average member votes better than a roll of dice, then
adding more members increases the number of majorities that can come to a
correct vote (however correctness is defined). The problem is that if the average
member is subsequently worse than a roll of dice, the committee's decisions
grow worse, not better; therefore, staffing is crucial. Parliamentary procedure,
such as Robert's Rules of Order, helps prevent committees from engaging in
lengthy discussions without reaching decisions.
Ecologies
This organisational structure promotes internal competition. Inefficient
components of the organisation starve, while effective ones get more work.
Everybody is paid for what they actually do, and so runs a tiny business that has
to show a profit, or they are fired. Companies who utilise this organisation type
reflect a rather one-sided view of what goes on in ecology. It is also the case
that a natural ecosystem has a natural border - ecoregions do not, in general,
compete with one another in any way, but are very autonomous.
Matrix organisation
This organisational type assigns each worker two bosses in two different
hierarchies. One hierarchy is "functional" and assures that each type of expert in
the organisation is well-trained, and measured by a boss who is super-expert in
the same field. The other direction is "executive" and tries to get projects
completed using the experts. Projects might be organised by products, regions,
customer types, or some other schemes.
As an example, a company might have an individual with overall responsibility
for products X and Y, and another individual with overall responsibility for
engineering, quality control, etc. Therefore, subordinates responsible for quality
control of project X will have two reporting lines.
Pyramids or hierarchical
A hierarchy exemplifies an arrangement with a leader who leads other
individual members of the organisation. This arrangement is often associated
with basis that there are enough imagine a real pyramid, if there are not enough
stone blocks to hold up the higher ones, gravity would irrevocably bring down
the monumental structure. So one can imagine that if the leader does not have
the support of his subordinates, the entire structure will collapse. Hierarchies
were satirised in The Peter Principle (1969), a book that
introduced hierarchiology and the saying that "in a hierarchy every employee
tends to rise to his level of incompetence."
Types of Organisation
An organisation that is established as a means for achieving
defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organisation. Its design
specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the
organisation. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make
up this work structure. Thus, the formal organisation is expected to behave
impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members.
According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit
or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that
safeguards him from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients.
The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in
adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at
lower levels of the organisation. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the
basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in
the organisation and endows them with the authority attached to their position.
Informal organisations
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader
emerges within the context of the informal organisation that underlies the
formal structure. The informal organisation expresses the
personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives
and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organisation. The
informal organisation represents an extension of the social structures that
generally characterise human life – the spontaneous emergence of groups and
organisations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal security,
maintenance, protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion of his
waking hours working for organisations. His need to identify with a community
that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging
continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal
organisation and its emergent, or unofficial leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organisation. Their
personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and
other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several
overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed
head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the
ability of a person to gain cooperation from others by means of persuasion or
control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a
person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.
Characteristics of Organisation
The various definitions help to identify some common characteristic of
organisations.
1. Organisations are purposeful, complex human collectivities;
2. They are characterised by secondary (or impersonal) relationships;
3. They have specialised and limited goals;
4. They are characterised by sustained co-operative activity;
5. They are integrated within a larger social system;
6. They provide services and products to their environment;
7. They are dependent on exchanges with their environment;

In relation to public organisations, they draw their resources (taxes and

legitimacy) from the polity and are mediated by the institutions of the state. If
we carefully examine these characteristics, they jointly reproduce what may be
referred to as working universal principles of organisations. They are three in
number.
a. There must be division of labour;
b. There must be identification of the services of the authority;
c. There must be the establishment of relationships.

These characteristics and the working principles in a guarded manner

summarize the content of the theories which explain organisations. The theories
attempt to explain what things make organisations tick, how organisations
behave, and what accounts for differences among them. Four of the theories are
outstanding: bureaucratic theory, scientific management, administrative
management and human relations theory. -A brief account of each of the
theories will be sufficient at this stage:

Organisation Theory
In the social sciences, organisations are the object of analysis for a number of
disciplines, such as sociology, economics, political
science, psychology, management and organisational communication. The
broader analysis of organisations is commonly referred to as organisational
structure, organisational studies, organisational behaviour, or organisation
analysis. A number of different perspectives exist, some of which are
compatible:

1. From a functional perspective, the focus is on how entities like businesses

or state authorities are used.
2. From an institutional perspective, an organisation is viewed as a
purposeful structure within a social context.
 3. From a process-related perspective, an organisation is viewed as an entity
is being (re-)organised, and the focus is on the organisation as a set of
tasks or actions.
Among the theories that are or have been influential are:

Activity theory is the major theoretical influence, acknowledged by

de Clodomir Santos de Morais in the development of Organisation
Workshop method. Actor–network theory, an approach to social theory and
research, originating in the field of science studies, which treats objects as part
of social networks. Complexity theory and organisations, the use of complexity
theory in the field of strategic management and organisational studies.
Contingency theory, a class of behavioural theory that claims that there is no
best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions.
Critical management studies, a loose but extensive grouping of theoretically
informed critiques of management, business, and organisation, grounded
originally in a critical theory perspective. Economic sociology, studies both the
social effects and the social causes of various economic phenomena. Enterprise
architecture, the conceptual model that defines the coalescence of organisational
structure and organisational behaviour. Garbage Can Model, describes a model
which disconnects problems, solutions and decision makers from each other.
Principal–agent problem, concerns the difficulties in motivating one party (the
"agent"), to act in the best interests of another (the principal) rather than in his
or her own interests. Scientific management (mainly following Frederick W.
Taylor), a theory of management that analyses and synthesises workflows.
Social entrepreneurship, the process of pursuing innovative solutions to social
problems. Transaction cost theory, the idea that people begin to organise their
production in firms when the transaction cost of coordinating production
through the market exchange, given imperfect information, is greater than
within the firm.
leadership
The term leadership has many meanings depending on the person defining it.
Some see it as referring to outstanding personalities while to other it has no
overtones of greatness; people are leaders because the organization defines their
job in that way. Despite this we can still examine some definitions. According
to Appleby (1961) leadership simply refers to "the ability of management to
induce subordinate to work toward organizational goals with confidence and
zeal". Drucker (1962) argues that when we talk of leadership, we are talking of
making common men into uncommon men. To him leadership "is the lifting of
a man's vision to higher sights, the raising of man's performance to a higher
standard, the building of a man's personality beyond its normal limitations".
Generally, therefore leadership occurs whenever one person influences another
to work toward some predetermined goal, willingly and enthusiastically. It is
 also important to note that leadership plays a major role in the motivation of
employees and in the direction of the firm.
A leader in a formal, hierarchical organisation, who is appointed to a managerial
position, has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the
authority of his position. However, he must possess adequate personal attributes
to match his authority, because authority is only potentially available to him. In
the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by
an emergent leader who can challenge his role in the organisation and reduce it
to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of
formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power
can legitimise this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with
commensurate authority.

Leadership Skills and Styles

Research by Robert Kats classified three leadership skills which are essential to
effective leadership. These skills include technical, human/social and
conceptual skills.
a) Technical skill - This refers to the abilities required from a leader that
relates to the knowledge of the job i.e. ability to use tools, procedures and
techniques in a specialized area. This skill is more important at a lower
level to enable supervisors and operating staff to correct deviations from
the production process.
b) Human/Social skill - This is the leader's ability to work with and
understand and motivate people as individuals or group. This skill is
required at all levels of management in an organization.
c) Conceptual skill - Although this skill is required at all levels of
management, but it is more required at the top management. It refers to
mental ability to co- ordinate and integrates all of an organization's
activities especially long-term plans and decisions affecting the
organization.

Personal qualities of a leader:

1) Honesty and Integrity - He must be honest in dealing with his
subordinates and customers.
2) Persuasiveness - This is the ability to persuade which involves a sense of
understanding of the point of view, the interest, and the conditions of
those to be persuaded. It is a process in which a source affects change in
targets attitudes by changing their beliefs relevant to that attitude (Organ
and Hamner, 1982:149).
3) Fairness - A leader should be fair in dealing with people. E.g. first come,
first serve, no nepotism etc.
 4) Inquisitiveness - A leader should be inquisitive and new things and ideas
should always interest him.
5) Spirit of competition - He must always welcome competition and should
make effective use of his personal and business resources to succeed and
survive in a volatile and competitive environment.

Leadership style is the pattern of behaviour that the person exhibits over time in
leadership situations. That is, situations in which he/she most influence other
people. There are different leadership styles as discussed below. This is divided
into three?

i. Autocratic (authoritarian): This style requires complete obedience on

the part of the subordinates and the leader restricts the subordinate’s
ability to contribute their ideas to decision-making. He leads by using
reward and punishment system to influence his subordinates.
ii. Democratic (permissive): This type of leader engages the employees in
deciding how the work is to be done and how the problems are to be
surmounted/tackled. This is the participative kind of leader. The
employees here can contribute their own ideas in the process of decision-
making.
iii. Laissez Fair/free rain leader (do-nothing): A laissez faire leader takes
little interest in how his employees do their work but leaves them to carry
on with their jobs however they see fit. This type of leader exercises little
control over their actions and may appear uninterested in their activities.

Theories of leadership
There are three major approaches to the study of leadership namely:

Trait Theory
This theory got its origin from the 'great man' theory of leadership, which
contended that leaders are born not made. The theory holds that leaders are born
with certain personality traits. Those who follow this theory believe that by
studying the personalities and backgrounds of great leaders, they can be able to
develop a combination of traits that made these people outstanding leaders. So,
they attempt to identify the traits of character and personality that make a
leader. These traits they assure distinction between leaders and non-leaders.
The following traits characterize a leader:

a) Intelligent - Various set of studies have discovered that leaders tend to be

more intelligent than their subordinates although they may not be more
intelligent when compare with members of another group.
b) Self-confidence - This is the ability of the leader to appear self-confident.
 c) Initiation - A person who does not initiate vision or ideas cannot be called
a leader.

In other studies, it was discovered that leaders tend to be brighter, better

adjusted psychologically, display better judgment etc. than non-leaders.

Behavioural Theory
This theory focuses on what leaders do on the job rather than on what traits or
characteristics they possess. The central argument among behavioural theorists
is that since behaviour can be changed, leaders can be 'made' or trained rather
than "born'.

Situational Theory
There is no one best way to leadership. Situational theory is gaining ground and
is more accepted today than the theories discussed above. According to Dale
(1978), this theory is saying that, "leadership is specific to the particular
situation under investigation". Thus, the choice of a leader will depend on the
problem facing the group and the character of the group itself.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to operationalise the basic concepts that are
central to understanding organisation, its types, characteristics and theories.
Included is leadrship, leadership skills, styles and theories. Despite the
multidimentional and multidisciplinary approach to the concept certain key
characteristics are paramount.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to conceptualise organisation, its types,
characteristics and theories as well as leadership, its skills, styles and theories.
Unit 4: Public Administration

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to identify and operationalise the concept of public
administration. This is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions and
ambiguity surrounding the concept of public administration arising from the
multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore, expected
to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
a. Understand the different definitions of public administration,
b. Describe the evolution of public administration, and
c. Assess the relevance of theoretical underpinning of public administration

Main Contents
Definition of Public Administration
Public administration (lower case) means the institutions of public bureaucracy
within a state. That is, the organizational structure, which form the basis of
public decision-making and implementation. In other words, the arrangements
by which public services are delivered. At the heart of public administration in
modem state is the civil service but it also includes all of the public bodies at
regional, local, military, paramilitary levels. Public Administration (upper case)
on the other hand is an academic discipline, which is the study of public
administration by means of institutional description, policy analysis and
evaluation, and intergovernmental relations analysis. The main thrust of Public
Administration is the development of a public sector organization theory
different from the intellectual leaning of private sector organization theory and
market principle (Bradbury, 1996).
Public Administration is a phrase that contains two words, namely; Public and
Administration. To fully comprehend the true meaning of the two words
therefore, it is pertinent to explain each of the concepts involved. The New
Webster's Dictionary (1995:807) defines the world public as:

1. Of, or relating to or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation
or state;
2. Of, or relating to a government or being in the service of the community
or nation;
3. Of, or relating to business or community interest as opposed to private
affairs; exposed to general view.

From the same dictionary, administration has been defined as the act or process
of administering:
 a. The performance of executive duties;
b. The execution of public affairs as distinguished from policy making;
c. The term of office of an administrator.

It thus implies that the meaning 'public' relates to public affairs, public service,
public servant, public figure and that which is exposed to public view. Similarly
the term administration is derived from two Latin words, "ad" and "minister"
which means, 'to serve or to manage'. It denotes something to administering a
nation, or state or a group of people. The major strand in this definition is that
administration deals with national service and with community interest at heart,
as opposed to private affairs. Moreover, this type of administration has to be
assessable to all members of the community. Therefore, the business of any
government should be open to the public it governs for scrutiny and review, and
never a closed-door affair of those who carry it out.

A simple definition of administration perhaps is that given by Chapman (1960)

as the science and art of getting things done using material resources and
cooperative efforts of people. Similarly, Adebayo (2000) defines administration
as the organization and direction of people in order to accomplish a specified
end. He went further to elaborate: "when two men cooperate to roll a stone that
neither could move alone, the rudiments of administration have appeared".

Ikelegbe (1995) on his part sees administration as a way of conceptual thinking

for attaining predetermined goals through group effort. According to him, such
concepts must have universal application, should emerge with human race and
will continue to be employed as long as mankind survives. This definition
rhymes with that given by Pfiffiner and Presthus (1960:43) when they assert
that administration is "an activity or process concerned with the means for
carrying out prescribed ends".

From the above definitions therefore, public administration is concerned with

the coordination of individual and group efforts to carry out public policy. This
makes a sense when we use Adamolekuns definition that says "public
administration is used to refer to both the activities concerned with the
management of governmental business and the study of these activities. This in
other words means that public administration could be used in two broad senses,
- as Practice and as Knowledge".

As practice, it means the activities of the executive branches of national, state

and local governments, independent boards and commissions set up by both
state and national legislatures, government corporations and other agencies of
specialized character. As a body of knowledge, public administration is directed
towards the understanding of governmental administration, accomplishment of
the authoritative purposes of the state and as a field of study considered as a
branch of the social science. Rhodes (1976:77) believes that the study of public
administration is "the multi-disciplinary study of the political-management
system (structures and processes) of public bureaucracies". In a less recent
definition, White (1926) defined it as the "management of man and materials in
the accomplishment of the purposes of the state".

The scope of public administration in modern advanced countries is enormous

and continually growing, reflecting such factors as population growth and
demands for the state to provide more and more services. The study also
encompasses not only the activities of agencies in central and local governments
but also quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organizations. In addition, the
subject is continually changing in broad general terms because of the different
conceptions of the role of the state held by various governments at different
times, and because there are so many and so frequent changes in the structures
and functions of particular governmental agencies.

The preceding definitions may be summed up in two distinctive characters.

First, public administration is a science, a body of knowledge consisting of the
social sciences - political science, sociology, law, economics, accounting,
philosophy and psychology. This means that as a field of study, it is multi
disciplinary. Second, public administration is an art, a practice, a professional or
career preoccupation of managers in the public sector. This explains why public
administrators are suppose to acquire the relevant knowledge, skills, values and
behavioural traditions to enable them formulate policies, organize complex
public services and to execute programmes and policies.

Generally speaking, public administration is concerned with managing change

in pursuit of publicly defined societal values. In the definition of public
administration there are serious theoretical issues. While having common
interest, theorists have ranged widely in their approaches to developing theories
of public organizations. Efforts in public administration theory include work by
public adminstrationist in empirical theory, normative theory, ethical theory,
public-choice theory, phenomenology, critical theory, psychoanalytic theory
and so on. In other words, theories related to public administration grew out of
political science, management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics
and a host of other disciplines in the social and management sciences
(Denhardt, 1992).

As noted earlier, public administration is viewed differently by different

academic disciplines. This in turn gave rise to different theoretical paradigm of
public administration. To the political science, public administration means rule
by appointed officials. In the field of sociology, it is understood as a particular
type of organization rather than as a system of government. To the Economists,
what is viewed as public organizations are characterized by the fact that being
funded through the tax system they are neither disciplined by the profit motive
nor responsive to market pressures.

Evolution of Public Administration

Public Administration is a field with two parents: political science and
management. In a more appropriate manner public administration could be said
to have a parent and a foster parent. That is, the mother discipline is political
science while its foster parent is management. However, public Administration
is a discipline of many forces with the influence of parents and foster parents
not the least of them (Henry, 1992). The importance of this exposition is that to
know where we are, we sometimes must know where we have been. Both
political science and management added important and integral components of
what we now know as the field of public administration. To recognize that
component therefore is to capitalize on them (Downs, 1982). It should also be
noted in passing that the study of public administration at the beginning was
centered on refining the applied techniques and methodologies of public
organizations theory with emphasis on such areas as state and local government,
executive management, administrative law, and public interest in a techno-
bureaucratic (big democracy) but later development provided for such
disciplines as environment of public administration (the role of bureaucracy in a
democracy), quantitative methods, public budgeting and financial management,
organizational theory and personnel administration (Denhardt, I 992).

Importantly, political science, the parent of public administration has had more
profound effects on the field than has management, its foster parent. This is
because public administration was born in the house of political science and its
early rearing occurred in its backyard. Therefore, the fundamentals of political
science such as democracy, pluralistic polity, political participation, rule of law
and due process among others continue to be held by the most independently
minded of public Administrationists. Thus, the environment of political science
sharpened and deepened the commitment of public Administrationists to core
constitutional concepts. Consequently, if public administration had been born
and bred in the business schools there wouldn't have been the same kind of
academic field as it is today. Invariably, it could be argued that political science
was the one that laid the philosophic and normative foundation of public
administration but at the end public administration has been able to define its
identity as something apart and distinct from both political science and
management (Gaus, 1950).
In other words, political science was profoundly influential on the evolution of
public administration, whereas management was less so. But in many ways, the
impact of management on public administration has been more positive. This
was partly because management entered into the upbringing of public
administration when the field was beginning its adolescence but unlike political
science it was not a blood relative, consequently, public administration, was
granted more independence and breathing space to grow and develop on its
own. This is not to say that the household environment created by the field of
management for public administration was warmth and succor. But instead of
treating public administration like an abusive parent, management allow public
administration to stay in its house like an absent-minded aunt who was never
quite sure of who was living in which room and who often forgot to serve
meals.

However, management had at least three distinct influences on public

administration. One, it forced public administration to examine more closely
what the public administration meant. This is in regard to the distinction
between public and private administration. Though this distinction later became
difficult to define empirically because of development such as the role of
regulatory agencies and their relations with industry, the expensive growth of
government corporations and privatization of public enterprises.

Two, it convinced many public administrationists that a whole new set of

methodologies of both political science and management were needed. Initially,
the existing methodologies of both political science and management were
adopted on selective basis, such as survey research method (from political
science) and operational research (from management). But by and large new
methods were adopted such as evaluation research or programme evaluation,
which is associated with many of the developing bundles or methodologies that
public administration calls it own (Weiss, 1972). The emphasis of these
methodologies is on whether public programmes are effective, efficient and
needed. They borrow techniques from the variety of disciplines and have a
clearly applied research cast. Closely related to evaluative research are the
continually evolving methods of finance and budgeting (White. 1985). Added
are the quantity techniques, which became part of public administration. These
include probability theory, statistical comparison, linear correlation and linear
programming, critical part method: benefit cost analysis, queuing theory, public
choice theory, simulation and management system among others (Welch and
Comer, 1983). Three, it provided public administration with a model or how to
assess what as a field it was teaching and why. That is, learning how to take
one's profession seriously by putting it through the long-term self-examination
and critical assessment.
 Theoretical underpinning of Public Administration
Essentially, the theory of public administration draws its greatest strength and
its most serious limitation from its diversity. Therefore, public administration
theorists are required to understand a broad range of perspectives relevant to
their theory-building task. This implies that, there is a tremendous richness and
complexion built into public administration theory. Unequivocally, there is
diversity and complexity of the theoretical enterprise in public administration
theory. The public administration theorists have continued to address many
traditional concerns of public administrationist such as the role of public
organizations in the governance process. The increased attention now is paid to
the ethics of public service along with related topics such as citizenship. There
is also more positive approach of epistemologists and the new interest in
psychological studies, as well as in inter-organisational networks and economic
models of bureaucratic behaviour.

To Burrell and Morgan (1979), all theories of organization are based upon a
philosophy of science and a theory of society. That, there are two dimensions on
which theories of organization can be arranged. One, the assumptions about the
nature of social science in relation to ontology, epistemology, human nature,
and methodology. And that discussion on them could take two dimensions,
which could be further grouped into the subjective-objective dimension. This
dimension ranges from- German idealism, which emphasizes the subjective
nature of human affairs to the sociological positivism, which seeks to apply the
natural science procedures to the collection and analysis of human behaviour.
Two, the assumption about "the sociology of regulation" and "sociology of
radical change". The former emphasizes the underlying order to cohesiveness of
human systems while the latter seeks explanations for radical changes in
society.

Furthermore, there is no-doubt in the fact that at various points in the history of
public administration other disciplines have been eager to embrace it under their
own theoretical banner. Based on this posture many early public administration
theorists and some still today have argued that public administration is distinct
by its relationship to the governmental process. In contrast other theorists have
argued that the behaviour of individuals within organizations and the behaviour
of organizations themselves is much the same regardless of the kind of
organization being studied. But contemporary theorists accept that public
administration is best viewed as a profession drawing from many different
perspectives. This is because there is no single discipline that can currently
provide the range of knowledge needed by administrators in the public sector
than it seems reasonable to bring coherence to programme through their
professional orientation (Denhardt, 1992).
According to Heywood (2003) in order to make sense out of the various usages
of administration three contrasting theories emerged; rational-administrative
machine, conservative power bloc model and source of government theory. In
discussing the rational-administrative machine theory, the work of Max Weber
on bureaucracy could be made use of whereby he sees bureaucracy as an "ideal
type" of rule based on a system of rational rules as opposed to either tradition or
charisma. The set of principles that characterized this bureaucratic organization
are;

1. Jurisdictional areas are fixed and official, and ordered by laws or rules,
2. Firmly ordered hierarchy which ensures that specific higher ones within a
chain of command supervise lower offices,
3. Business is managed on the basis of written documents and a filing
system,
4. The authority of official is impersonal and stems entirely from the post
they hold, not from personal status,
5. Bureaucratic rules are strict enough to minimize the scope of personal
discretion, and
6. Appointment and advancement within a bureaucracy are based on
professional criteria, such as training, expertise and administrative
competence.

The central feature of administration from this Weberian perspective is its

rationality. Because it reflects the advance of a reliable, predictable and above
all efficient means of social organization. The development of this type of
administration by Weber was closely linked to the emergence of capitalist
economies particularly to the greater pressure for economic efficiency and the
emergency of large-scale business units. Further influence of democracy is
noted in the development of bureaucracy whereby ideas such as tradition,
privilege and duty are weakened and replaced with belief in open competition
and meritocracy. This is also supported by the convergence thesis of Burnham
(1987) which submits that regardless of their ideological differences all
industrial societies are governed by a class of managers, technocrats and state
officials whose power is vested in their technical and administrative skills.

The view of public administration as a power bloc stems largely from socialist
analysis particularly Marxism. Marx linked bureaucracy to the specific
requirements of capitalism. He was concerned with the class role played by the
state bureaucracy seeing it as a mechanism through which bourgeois interests
are up held and capitalist system defended. Further analysis by neo-Marxist
such as Morgan (1983) paid attention to the capacity of senior servants to act as
conservative veto group that dilutes or even blocks the radical initiatives of
socialist government. In other words, top civil servants are conservative because
they are within their allocated sphere and consciously or unconsciously allies of
existing economic and social elites. This is because despite the formal
requirements of political neutrality, top civil servants share the same educational
and social background as industrialists and business managers and are likely
share their ideas, prejudices and general outlook. This conservative outlook of
higher civil servants is reinforced by their ever-increasing closeness to the world
of corporate capitalism. This was the consequence of state intervention in
economic life, ensuring an ongoing relationship between business groups and
civil servants who define national interest in terms of the long-term interest of
private capitalism. The implication of this analysis is that if senior civil servants
are wedded to the interests of capitalism, a major obstacle is created for any
attempt to achieve socialism through constitutional means.

The oversupply model on the other hand is drawn from the emergence of
rational choice motivations of bureaucrats. Rational theory is based on the same
assumptions about human nature as those in neoclassical economics. That is,
individuals are rationally self-seeking creatures or utility maximizers. The
public choice theory applied this economic model of decision-making to the
public sector.

Furthermore, public service contains a powerful inner dynamic, leading to the

growth of government and expansion of public responsibilities. Therefore, the
ability of appointed officials to 'dictate policy' priorities to elected politicians
goes a long way towards, explaining how state growth has occurred under
governments of very different ideological complexions, that, public service is
not disciplined by profit motive. And if costs exceed revenue, the taxpayer is
always there to pick up the bills. Similarly, public service is usually a monopoly
and is in no way forced to respond to market pressures. The results are that
public sectors are inherently wasteful and inefficient. Moreover, the service they
provide is invariably of poor quality and does not meet consumer needs or
wishes. This consequently led to the philosophy not only that public services are
scaled down but also that when possible, private sector management techniques
should be introduced.

4.0Conclusion
In conclusion, discussions on the conceptual and theoretical framework of
public administration as well as its evolution carried out in this unit sees public
administration as a field of study and as a profession. As a field of study it
emanates from political science and nurtured by management. As a profession it
entails activities in running public organizations such as planning, organization,
staffing, directing, co-coordinating, reporting and budgeting, In terms of
theoretical underpinning of public administration, three theories were identified,
namely; rational-administrative machine, conservative power bloc model and
source of government oversupply.

5.0Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to conceptualise public administration, its
evolution, the influence of political science and management on it and its
theoretical underpinning.
 MODULE 2: POLITICS/POLICY/ADMINISTRATION DICHOTOMY

Unit 1: Administration and Politics

1.0 Introduction
The focus of this unit is to identify and discuss the relationships between
administration and politics as well as the various debates on the relationships.
This is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions and ambiguity
surrounding the relationships between administration and politics arising from
the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore,
expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Discuss the relationships between administration and politics, and
2. Understand the trends in the debates on administration and politics,

Main Contents
Relationships between Administration and Politics
The relationship between politics and administration is often viewed from two
perspectives. One viewpoint sees the relationship as dichotomous; the other
perspective argues that both areas are not clearly distinct but interconnected.
Perhaps the most notable exponent of the dichotomy thesis was Woodrow
Wilson. In an article written in 1887, he argued that: “The policy of government
will have no taint of officialdom about it. It will not be the creation of
permanent officials but of statesmen whose responsibility to public opinion will
be direct and inevitable”. Wilson’s position has been reiterated by other scholars
such as Goodnow and White.

According to White, whose book is reputed to be the first devoted entirely to

public administration, the general thrust of the field of administration maintains
that:
1. Politics should not intrude on administration;
2. Management lends itself to scientific study;
3. Public administration is capable of becoming a value - free science in its
own right;
4. The mission of administration is economy and efficiency.

However, there are other scholars who hold the opposite viewpoint and have
argued that there is no rigid distinction between politics and administration. One
of the exponents of this position, Appleby has remarked that, “public
administration is policy making. Public administration is one of the numbers of
basic political processes by which people achieve and control government”.

Since the beginning of the debate, some scholars have gone on to suggest that
public administration is more part of “management science” than political
science. Those scholars present strong theoretical reasons for choosing
management with emphasis on organisation theory as the paradigm of public
administration. Examples of scholars who advanced this viewpoint are
Henderson, Marchand, Simon, and Thomson.

Debate on Administration/Politics Dichotomy

The entire trend of thought contained in the debate on administration/politics
dichotomy has been well presented by categorising the viewpoints into four
competing paradigms which began about 1900. The shifts began from about
1900 with the ' first phase of school of thought ending at about 1926, during
which date the dichotomy between politics and administration was upheld.

The second paradigm 1927-1937 was the “high noon of orthodoxy” and prestige
of public administration which was marked by the thoughts of Henri Fayol and
Frederick Taylor. This was the high point of the “administrative management”
school. The debate at this time insisted on the existence of certain scientific
principle of administration which could be discovered, and administrators
would be experts in their work if they learnt how to apply those principles. It
was at this stage that POSDCORB was introduced and popularised. This period
was followed closely by a third school of thought which produced scholars like
Herbert Simon, Robert Dahl and Dwight Waldo. These scholars argued that it
was not feasible to develop a universal principle of administration. For instance,
Herbert Simon argued that instead of principle of administration, there should
be a more human process of decision-making.

The third school of thought coincided with the behavioural period in political
science, 1950-1970, when public administration focused on what became
comparative and development administration. Another name for this approach
was cross-cultural public administration According to Fred Riggs; one of the
prominent authors at the time, the aim of comparative administration was to use
that field to strengthen public administration theory.

Close to the same period as comparative public administration, another

paradigm evolved, 1956-1970, which shifted attention toward “management
science” or administrative science. This approach of looking at public
administration offered techniques, at times highly sophisticated, requiring
expertise and specialization. At this time it was argued that instead of being part
of political science, public administration should remain in the area of
"management science. The thinking was entertained that “administration
was administration” whether in public, business or institutional administration.
Emphasis in the study was “organisational theory,” bureaucracy, whether
public, or private.

From public administration as management, the discipline moved to what may

be considered the present state of the discipline; the new public administration
from 1970 to present which emphasizes that public administration should be
studied along with science and society. The new public administration reflects
the new interesting the relationship between knowledge and power, bureaucracy
and democracy, technology and management, and technology and bureaucracy.
Also, the period is witnessing interdisciplinary programmes in science,
technology and public policy. Emphasis has shifted away from the traditional
concern for efficiency, effectiveness, budgeting and administrative techniques
to a new public administration much aware of normative theory, philosophy and
activism; thus the new questions it raises are on ethics, the development of the
individual members in the organism, the relation of the client to the
bureaucracy, and the broad problem of urban growth, technology and violence.

In sum, therefore, political science and management are the major influences on
the present stage of development of public administration. The present stage
pays extra attention to areas of organisation theory and information science,
emphasizing areas like the state, local government, executive management,
administrative law, and all those questions which seek to explain what the
public interest is in a democracy and under a highly bureaucratic set up that is
confronted by high technology. Accordingly, core areas of the present state of
the study are:
a. Environment of public administration (ecology);
b. Quantitative methods, public budgeting and financial management;
c. Personnel administration
d. Public policy

Details of the several phases of the development of public administration among

other things show that administration takes place in an organisation and also
when administration takes place in a very large and complex organisation,
bureaucracy necessarily comes into practice.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to establish the relationship between
administration and politics. The learner has been exposed to the basic facts on
the debate on administration and politics dichotomy.
 5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to discuss the relationships between
administration and politics. In addition, the debate by various scholars on
administration and politics dichotomy were discussed.
 Unit 2: Inter play of Political Institutions and Administration

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to identify and operationalise the concepts of
administration and political institutions. This is to enable the learner overcome
some misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the concept of administration
and political institutions arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary
approaches to it. Included is the legal basis of political institutions, political
institutions as forms of social domination, gender as a means of legitimating
social institutions, relationship of Administration to political institutions and
control of behavior in politics and administration. You are therefore, expected
to give the unit maximum attention it deserves. It should be noted that the
discussion in this unit draws extensively from experience of France as a main
case study.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
a. Understand the different definitions of administration and political
institutions,
b. Describe the legal basis of political institutions,
c. Discuss how gender serves as a means of legislating political
institution, and
d. Explain how behavior is control in politics and administration.

Main Contents
Administration
Simply defined, administration is the organization and direction of persons in
order to accomplish a specified end. Perhaps the simplest and shortest definition
of administration is the one which says; "when two men cooperate to roll a
stone that neither could move alone the rudiments of administration have
appeared" (Thompson, et. al. 1950). Generally, administration refers to the
organization and management of man and materials to achieve the goal of any
collectivity of people. Administration must exist in any organisation set-up for a
defined purpose or objective. Whether you think of the Church, the army, a
social welfare agency, a University, an industrial or business concern or a
purely social organisation, there has to be administration because each one
consists of human beings brought together in a hierarchical set-up making use
of tools, equipment, human and material resources, all in the quest to attain the
objective for which the organisation is established. Thus, the Bishop in the
Church, the field Marshal in the army, the vice-chancellor in the University, the
managing director or chairman of an industrial or business enterprise, each has
under him a hierarchy of subordinates, each with functions and responsibilities
assigned for the accomplishment of the objective or purpose of the organization.
This process requires planning, organization, command, coordination and
control. All of these constitute administration (Adebayo, 1994; Murray, 1974).

Political Institutions

While studying institutions as a key aspect of the social sciences, analysis of the
institutions must directly involved in exercising political power (the
government, parliament, the presidency, etc.) which long failed to make it onto
the research agenda. This lack of interest can largely be explained by the
division of research topics between legal studies and political science. Political
science set itself apart from law by addressing topics that were not pre-empted
by legal specialists (electoral behaviour, political parties, etc.) leaving the latter
to the monopoly on studying institutions. The renewal of studies in comparative
politics in the 1970s and 1980s and later the spread of the neo-institutionalist
trend in France in the 1990s, had little effect on this state of affairs. At most,
political institutions were included as explanatory variables in analyses of
public policy, international relations, or social movements. They did not,
however, gain the status of a subject in and of themselves among social science
researchers and this field of inquiry therefore remained a science of
constitutional texts.

However, constitutional texts can in no way fully encompass the reality of

political institutions. Parliament, for example, far exceeds the functions and
rank conferred upon it by the 1958 Constitution. While today it only has a
secondary position in the circuit of political decisions, it nonetheless remains
crucial for anyone interested in politics as a profession and, more broadly, in
political representation. First, since public funding for political parties was
indexed on the legislative election results, it has been a major trophy in party
competition. Second, it is also a necessary gateway for Ministers as well as a
key locus for professionalisation where actors can build up indigenous capital
on the ground.

It is therefore possible to produce knowledge about political institutions that

goes beyond that afforded by the legal sciences. Since the early 1990s, certain
researchers in political science have pursued this goal. While they could not be
called a school as such, they do nonetheless all openly subscribe to the approach
that Jacques Lagroye and Bernard Lacroix formally defined in a pioneering
book entitled Le Président de la République, considered a seminal work in this
field of inquiry in France.

In terms of hypotheses, key issues, and ways of conducting research, their

approach differed from the English-language studies being conducted at the
same time under the banner of neo-institutionalism. It was first and foremost
characterised by its empirical nature. This sociology of political institutions
rejected disciplinary boundaries, choosing instead to use investigative protocols
combining sociological, historical, and anthropological methods (archival
research, ethnographic observation, interviews, prosopography). The
researchers in question all refused to subscribe to any one theoretical trend,
showing no hesitation in combining perspectives often considered mutually
exclusive on the other side of the Atlantic (for example, rational choice,
symbolic interactionism, and genetic structuralism).

However, this empirical stance did not mean that they eschewed theoretical
ambitions. Quite the contrary, the latter were a central component in how they
construed their subject. The key research issue they addressed in their studies
was the way in how political institutions can objectify the social order. Put
differently, their primary aim was to fully embed political institutions in the
social world. French researchers are less interested in institutions than in
processes of institutionalisation and their aim tends to understand the links
between these processes and the social order. In doing so, they can be said to be
pursuing an avenue opened up by Max Weber, according to whom domination,
when exercised over a large number of individuals in a lasting fashion, requires
political and administrative apparatuses tasked with maintaining belief in its
legitimacy.

Broadly speaking, two main lines of research can be distinguished from this
perspective. The first is macro-sociological and aims to understand the
processes through which political institutions are invested with socially shared
beliefs that legitimate the way political power is exercised in contemporary
democracies. The second is more micro-sociological and examines the
conditions under which relations of domination are reproduced or transformed
within institutions. This second line of research sheds complementary light on
the first: it deconstructs the relations of domination that tends to be objectivised
by the legitimating of institutions.

The power that institutions exercise over individuals is a key issue in this field
of inquiry. For a long time, this question was addressed in two mutually
exclusive ways: on the one hand, the likes of Emile Durkheim and Michel
Foucault, to name the most renowned, showed that institutions had the power to
discipline bodies and minds; on the other, people such as Erving Goffman and
Anthony Giddens emphasised individual actors’ margin of freedom and their
ability to play with, and even subvert, institutional rules. However, as Jacques
Lagroye and Michel Offerlé have noted, studies devoted to political institutions
are strikingly different from their predecessors in this regard. Insofar as they pay
careful attention to the heterogeneous nature of relationships to institutions, they
 immediately reject this binary choice. Rather than judging the degree of
constraint exercised over actors by objectivated bodies of rules and beliefs, they
strive to show the various ways in which actors engage with these rules and
beliefs.

Legitimating Political Institutions

Of course, contemporary democracies are not only based on beliefs. Political
regimes are held together in various ways: authorities that have the right to use
physical violence have monopoly over that violence, but, additionally, the
interdependent relations linking those who govern and those who are governed
are based on a range of exchanges and interpersonal obligations. Nonetheless,
short of demonstrating that the layperson’s relationship to political institutions
is only ever indifferent, submissive, and/or self-interested, the relatively robust
nature of regimes cannot be fully understood without analysing the full range of
beliefs that legitimate how political power is exercised and that increase the
likelihood of people being willing to abide by its decisions. This research
hypothesis raises at least two questions. What beliefs legitimate democratic
political institutions? And how are they forged, that is to say by whom and
through what processes?

Answers to these questions were first provided in the wake of Max Weber’s
work. According to Weber, the contemporary state is modern insofar as it is
based on rational legal domination, which in turn rests on a belief in the legality
of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to
issue commands. Following on from this, some researchers have underscored
the key role that the law plays in contemporary democracies: as the official
language of institutions, it lends them legitimacy through the weight of its
impersonal, general form; as a doctrine relating to how public authorities are
organised, it tends to mask the arbitrary aspect to power by disembodying it. In
other words, these studies shed light on the creation of a belief that is
fundamental to the legitimation of democratic political institutions, namely the
belief that they are neutral. This serves as a veritable front which, as James G.
March and Johan P. Olsen explain, long prevented their scientific analysis.
More specifically, by retracing the genesis of Republican constitutional
doctrine, looking at how it became autonomous from political power, or
examining how it is used in the government of international institutions, such
research sheds novel light on the socio-professional conditions of political
legitimation without slipping into a sociology of conspiracy. Due to both their
professional ethos and the specificities of the legal field, legal specialists are in
fact the first to subscribe to the justifications they produce. As for political
leaders, the legal formatting of their positions constrains their actions just as
much as it legitimates them.
Article 5 of the 1958 Constitution, as we know, justifies the exceptional powers
of the President of the Republic given the role of arbitre (with its dual meaning
of both arbitrator, in the legal sense, and umpire). However, as a consequence of
this legal definition of the presidential role, those who take it on then find
themselves distanced from party support, which can place them in somewhat of
a double bind when it comes to re-election. In February 2016, for example,
when a journalist from radio station France Inter asked President François
Hollande whether he was “still left-wing”, he responded spontaneously, as if a
prisoner of the legal definition of his role, “I’m the President of the Republic…
I represent all French people”, drawing sarcasm and caustic comments from
many editorialists and left-wing voters.

The fact remains that while these studies have considerably enriched our
knowledge of rational legal domination, research on the legitimation of political
institutions cannot stop there. First, nothing in Weber’s work allows us to think
that this is the only kind of domination that subsists today, despite evolutionist
readings of the different forms of domination he describes in Economy and
Society. As Weber explains, they are only ideal-types, which are neither
successive nor exclusive. Studies analysing charismatic phenomena in the most
bureaucratised states of law have clearly demonstrated this and it is particularly
true of the Fifth Republic. As Brigitte Gaïti has shown, its legitimation was first
and foremost predicated on General de Gaulle as a figure and on his “prophetic”
Bayeux speech. His charisma was routinised in such a way as to place the future
of the regime in the balance and was a key issue in political competition during
the early years of the Fifth Republic, which had a lasting impact on the
presidential role. The case of French political institutions, while emblematic, is
far from being exceptional. As other studies have shown, the construction of
European institutions also owes much to the charismatic communities that
formed around Jean Monnet and Pierre Henry Teitgen .

Second, certain observations relativise how important the law is in legitimating

contemporary political institutions. First, voter abstention, radicalisation, and
civil disobedience all indicate that a substantial number of citizens do not
necessarily subscribe to this level of justification. It is also likely that many
people, including those with high-level qualifications, do not have the necessary
legal knowledge to think of political institutions in legal terms. Furthermore,
while the legal framework of political life has developed considerably over the
last thirty years, certain positions of power remain bound in a regime that is
almost entirely exempt from the law. The Prime Minister and, more broadly, the
government, offer a case in point as their scope of activity is largely
undetermined by law. For all these reasons, and to avoid remaining confined to
legal discourse about political institutions – which actually contributes to
 rational legal domination – researchers have also examined the hypothesis that
the legitimacy of democratic institutions is based on their capacity to be
identified with certain social norms.

Political Institutions as Forms of Social Domination

Political institutions, as we know, are particularly elitist. On this point, the
statistics are incontrovertible: the higher one looks in the hierarchy of political
institutions, the stronger the social over-selection of its staff. For a long time,
however, this specificity was explained by exogenous factors such as the
aristocratic nature of recruitment procedures – elections, nomination, co-
opting – and the fact that the sense of political competence was unevenly
distributed within society. It is only with the development of studies on the
“profession” of elected official and on the political profession in general that
these explanations were supplemented with endogenous factors, specific to the
institutions themselves. These new studies demonstrated empirically that
institutions are not only defined legally, they are also socially constructed.

First, holding political office means taking on the role of elected official and
this comes with certain social expectations. These may sometimes be weak or
unclear in relatively recent institutions or those little known to the public.
However, within the most established institutions, such as the Presidency, these
expectations serve as prescriptions determining the behaviour of those post-
holders. For example, socialist party mayors proved unable to subvert the
mayoral office as they had originally hoped. Quite the contrary, in fact: the
various interactions in which they were caught up as councillors (with
the Préfet, the administration, the voters) progressively socialised them to the
norms of their role as “notables”.
Second, whatever the expectations weighing on the roles of elected officials,
advancing in Conseils municipaux, Parliament, etc. requires a certain political
know-how, linked particularly to public speaking – eloquence, repartee, humour
– that are not evenly distributed throughout society. It is therefore not enough to
be elected in order to become a fully legitimate member of parliament,
something that the first working-class parliamentarians discovered at their
expense, as did both the Poujadist tradesmen who joined the Assemblée
nationale in 1956 and the first elected officials from the Front National party .
Whether in the ranks of the Assemblée nationaleitself or in the press, these
socially atypical parliamentarians faced stigmatising social judgments that
discredited them as representatives.

What is true for class is also true for gender. As early as 1988, Mariette Sineau
showed that political institutions, while theoretically universal, were in reality
gendered and gendering. In other words, they forced female elected officials to
 imitate the virile behaviour of their male counterparts. In this regard, while the
parity law introduced in June 2000 offers an unprecedented way of promoting
women in politics, it has not necessarily made the task any easier for the women
wanting to pursue a career in the field. Elected due to their sex, they nonetheless
still have to conform to the masculine norms of the role in order to
avoid symbolic sanctions. Political institutions are therefore not just mirrors
reflecting existing social inequalities: they also contribute actively to the
unequal distribution of power in society between classes, sexes, and races.

Gender as a means of Legitimating Political Institutions

Studies on women in politics do not, however, simply confirm that the universal
is masculine here as it is elsewhere. Pursuing an avenue opened up by historian
Joan W. Scott, they also show that “gender is a primary way of signifying
relationships of power”. In other words, it can be analysed as a political
language that not only creates hierarchy and structure in the social world, but
also makes the political organisation of societies objective by naturalising it.
Elsa Dorlin’s work on plantocratic regimes is a prime example. She shows that,
as a “matrix for race”, gender served to justify the domination of a minority of
“whites” over a minority of “blacks”. However, these political uses of gender
are far from remaining confined to obsolete regimes in faraway lands.

Of course, in the relatively closed circles of political activism in contemporary

democracies, there is little scope for claiming a gendered political identity.
Gender is nonetheless extremely present in public commentary of political life
and particularly in journalistic portraits where specific features of this language
make it particularly “efficient” in a field as differentiated and conflictual as
politics. Above and beyond the fact it relates to the “nature” of things, i.e. to the
things considered most self-evident and indisputable, it is also universally
shared. In other words, unlike legal language, it can be understood by everyone
including people who have little political awareness. Consequently, it can
contribute to mobilising public opinion around political views and party loyalty.
However, it also serves to naturalise hierarchical relationships between
positions of power that are not framed objectively by the rule of law.

This is the case, for example, where the President/Prime Minister relationship is
concerned. It is largely undetermined by law, in terms of both the boundaries of
competence of each role and the hierarchy between the two. Significantly, the
press talks about the “President/Prime Minister couple” and their “divorce”
when certain heads of government leave the role. Similarly when, in 2005, the
President made his Minister of the Interior (who was the leader of the majority
at the time) second in the order of precedence instead of the Prime Minister, this
unprecedented configuration within the executive was described as a “ménage à
trois”. The rhetoric used to frame these situations is therefore neither legal nor
 even political but domestic. Above all, in this language, the Prime Minister is
positioned on the side of the dominated/feminine gender to the extent, in fact,
that it can create gender trouble for those who take on the role.

In the Fifth Republic, the Prime Minister is the leader of the government but not
of the executive. Periods of cohabitation aside, since 1962, the leader of the
government has always played the “secondary” role and even more so when
appointed during the president’s term. It is striking to note that, in the press,
political actors who accept this role tend to be framed in feminine terms. In
other words, the qualities ascribed to them are those usually associated with
women in politics (listening, being discreet, being likable, etc.) and journalists’
attention focuses to an unusual degree on their families, bodies, and clothes.
These feminine identity markers attached to political leaders can be analysed as
a way of naturalising their subordinate position in the hierarchy of executive
power, while symbolically preserving the gendered order of the social world.
Having underlined the role of law and legal specialists in producing the beliefs
that legitimate how political power is organised, current research now highlights
the role played by gender and journalists. In this regard, the rise in work on
gender in communication and media studies – whether in information and
communication technologies or in political science has contributed to furthering
knowledge about the legitimation of political institutions. From this perspective,
that legitimation appears less grounded in reason (legal, economic, etc.) than in
nature. To use Mary Douglas’s terms, because they are linked by analogy to
naturalised elementary classifications, such as the male/female divide, political
institutions “are part of the order of the universe and so are ready to stand as the
grounds of argument” . What remains to be understood is how, on a concrete
level, they contribute to founding the social order.

Relationships of administration to Political Institutions

This particular stance can be explained in two ways. The first stems from the
specificity of political institutions. They are part of a relatively autonomous
universe of practices, which is also characterised by its extremely competitive
nature. As evidenced by the way presidential candidates include constitutional
reforms in their manifestos – and even more so by the way elected Presidents
tend to enact regime reforms – defining political institutions is one of the major
trophy in political competition, alongside gaining power. Moreover, in this
universe of institutional practices, there is no formal socialisation when it comes
to actors’ behaviour and, to some extent, the recruitment of the people who
work in political institutions escapes the control of those who run them. Given
the reality of the field, trying to understand the variable relationships between
political institutions and their actors was therefore more a necessity than an
epistemological break with the past. The second reason lies with
researchers’ libido sciendi. As Bernard Lacroix and Jacques Lagroye explain in
their introduction to Président de la République, the original aim here was to
break away from the presuppositions inherent to legal analysis and particularly
with any reified view of the research object at hand. In this context, Emile
Durkheim’s call to broach social facts as “things” seemed less of a priority that
Max Weber’s call to understand actors’ motivations.
This stance was first expressed conceptually through redefinitions of the notion
of “role”. In a key interview with the journal Politix, published under the
somewhat telling title “We are not subjected to our roles”, Jacques Lagroye
defined a “role” as a “set of behaviours linked to an institutional position which
enable that position to exist, which make it perceptible to others”. At first
glance, this definition might seem vague. However, this is far from being a
limitation; on the contrary, it is precisely where its value lies: as well as
encouraging us to look as closely as possible at practices and collective
representations of institutions, this definition offers a way of ‘escaping the futile
contrast between approaches framed in terms of how roles are learnt,
emphasising a certain “institutional logic”, and interactionist analysis, which, on
the contrary, tends to present roles as behaviour resulting solely from the
partners’ expectations’.

On a methodological level, this stance mainly translated into qualitative

approaches. More often than not, it generated ethnographic style monographs
studying “the dynamic encounter between what is objectivated and how people
engage with that” on a case-by-case basis. However, with the recent rise of
legislative studies in France, quantitative methods are now also being used to
create typologies of parliamentarians’ behaviour and the different ways in
which they perform the role of representative. However, whatever the protocols
used and whatever the institutions studied, these studies all lead to the same
conclusion: the relationship between the institution and its actors is a co-
constructed, dialectic relationship. Political institutions appear to be continually
shaped by the actors in a position to engage in the practical and symbolic
struggles involved in their social construction. Moreover, and in relation to this,
the power wielded by these institutions cannot simply be compared to that of a
police force tasked with maintaining the existing social order. The Conseil
général offers a good example in this regard. On the one hand, this institution
plays an important role in socialising people to political careers by allowing
some of its members to go beyond the locally-rooted nature of their office. On
the other hand, it is torn between an “instrumental” rationale, which tends to
reduce its role to that of a front-line desk dealing with social action, and a
“politicisation” rationale, introduced by certain politicians who hold dual
mandates as Councillors on this assembly but also as parliamentarians at
the Assemblée nationale. In some cases, this co-construction can produce social
 changes, even under authoritarian regimes. For example, far from consolidating
the pershmega’s power, the progressive autonomy of the Iraqi-Kurdistan
parliament underway since the mid-2000s has in fact weakened it. Within this
institution, elected officials’ social and political identity, as well as their
allegiances, have shifted as partisan resources have given way to academic
qualifications.

Non-collective political institutions, such as the Presidency, are no exception in

this regard. The presidential role in France is commonly described as having
been tailor-made by and for the General de Gaulle, who viewed the role as that
of an arbiter – both an arbitrator, in the legal sense, and an umpire – detached
from any party affiliation. However, it has in fact considerably evolved since
election by direct universal suffrage was introduced.

From as early as the 1965 vote, the role became politicised under pressure from
the left wing, to the extent that electing a candidate with little or no party capital
seems impossible today. At the same time, defining the presidential role became
the main prize in a symbolic struggle where the social value of economic
capability was at stake, along with the social value of the groups who could take
advantage of it. Although this struggle also went beyond this, it culminated in
the 1965 presidential campaign when the General de Gaulle was forced to
defend the economic results of his first seven-year term and to publicly
acknowledge the importance he placed on economic issues in playing his role.

Of course, these counter-intuitive examples are in the minority. But they do

remind us that, in political institutions more than anywhere else, relationships of
domination are never fixed: they are constantly being (re)decided. Even when
domination seems to be accepted and not particularly conflictual, for example
among the communist intellectuals studied by Frédérique Matonti , this
relationship can still entail ruse, double talk, or criticism. It therefore produces
not only consensus but also tension and compromises. And when this
domination is maintained despite legal measures aimed at reversing it, for
example in the case of the French assemblies that are supposed to respect parity,
this is not an iterative process that reproduces the existing situation identically –
instead, it is a reconstructive process, in which the dominant only manage to
keep their positions through various more or less costly investments.

Control of Behaviour in Politics and Administration

Broaching political institutions as a heterogeneous, conflictual, and shifting
group of human beings logically means examining how behaviour is regulated
within them. On this point, research has largely drawn on knowledge from the
field of political sociology. Political parties are known for serving as “recruiting
offices” for political leaders. This is where actors are socialised to politics as a
profession; it is also where those who want to exercise power are chosen, both
through the processes selecting nominees for elections and, more recently,
through the primary elections for presidential candidates. It has long been
established that voting systems have an impact on the composition of
deliberative assemblies. In this regard, the preference for a single-member
plurality system in the legislative elections is not insignificant. As well as
restricting political pluralism by creating parliamentary majorities, it also gives
an advantage to outgoing parliamentarians and has discriminatory effects on
outsiders to political competition. Nevertheless, this kind of control over the
selection of politicians does not guarantee control over expected behaviour. This
is apparent in the lack of discipline regularly shown by majority
parliamentarians as well as by the many conflicts that have rocked the history of
President/Prime Minister relations under the Fifth Republic outside periods of
cohabitation and despite the fact the President has almost sole discretionary
power in appointing a government leader who will not dispute presidential
precedence within executive power.

As well as these processes aimed at controlling recruitment, there are also

practices aimed at managing behaviour. Daily monitoring at Matignon allows
Presidents to try – more or less successfully – to control their Prime
Ministers. This is first and foremost done via members of the presidential
offices that mirror the Prime Minister’s offices. They are constantly in contact
with members of the other offices, attend all inter-ministerial meetings, and
sometimes even bypass Matignon. Ministers are also a means of control over
the Prime Minister given that the President signs the decrees appointing them.
This prerogative allows Presidents to control the make-up of the government
and also to keep Prime Ministers away from certain issues, which are then dealt
with directly at the Élysée with the Minister in question. This can also be a way
of marginalising Prime Ministers within the government, by surrounding them
with Ministers whose loyalties lie more with the President. For example,
following defeat in the 2014 municipal elections, President François Hollande
replaced his friend Jean-Marc Ayrault with one of his main competitors for
the Élysée, Manuel Valls; however, he only slightly reworked the government
itself, thereby isolating the new Prime Minister from his most direct supporters.
Parliamentary discipline is also based on both voluntary and forced submission
on the part of majority parliamentarians. While it is in their interest for the
government to succeed, observation of the majority parliamentary group shows
that, in fact, a complex set of allegiances, self-controlled hopes, direct and
indirect pressure, persuasion, and negotiations of all kinds, determine whether
members follow voting instructions.
As Damien Lecomte has shown, the socialist parliamentary group – which had a
majority in the Assemblée nationale under the fourteenth legislative term – was
entirely focused on the quite tricky task of regulating/channelling
parliamentarians’ behaviour. The key function of the group’s bureau is to ensure
that members of parliament are present in plenary sessions, but it also manages
its members’ activities very closely with a view to ensuring they follow the
internal rules. According to these, bill proposals and amendments should only
be submitted to the bureau of the Assemblée nationale after gaining approval
from the parliamentary group. While it is possible to depart from this rule,
amendments signed by the group are more likely to be adopted in plenary
sessions, if only because one of the roles of the bureau (and the rapporteur) is to
negotiate such amendments with the minister in charge of the bill. In cases of
persistent disagreement, however, the group’s bureau has limited means through
which to put pressure on its troupes. Sanctions do theoretically exist, but are
rarely applied because they are relatively ineffective. It is therefore easier for
the bureau to negotiate discipline in return for certain collective resources –
requesting legislative reports, putting forward bills in the name of the group,
asking questions at government “question time”, etc. The bureau can determine
how such resources are distributed within the group and potentially restrict
access to them to any “disloyal” members. However, this remains an imperfect
means of control: first, these resources are relatively rare, and second, many
members of parliament are quite happy to hold office without ever being a
rapporteur, having a slot in question time, or putting forward any legislative
proposals.

However, the power of political institutions can only be fully understood when
we also take into account that behaviour is also controlled in unintentional
ways. As several studies have shown, in order to understand how actors
conform to the institution’s requirements, it is necessary to look at how their
work is organised. For example, the system of different meetings involved in
the deliberations of inter-municipal bodies operate as “a series of ‘sieves’
calibrating and filtering debates and decisions before they arrive in front of
the Conseil” . This considerably reduces the possibility of conflicts arising in
the Conseil itself and leads, de facto, to a “consensus regime” in which party
resources and conduct are ineffective. Similarly, studies on women in politics
have shown that the dual segregation – both vertical and horizontal – affecting
female elected officials in parliaments worldwide is also linked to how work is
organised through specialist committees in these sorts of assemblies. This
bureaucratic organisation based on specialisation encourages female elected
officials to turn to their field of socio-professional competence. Given current
academic and professional career paths, this tends to lead to women being
mainly present on committees devoted to “social” and/or “cultural” affairs,
which are less strategic areas for building a career in politics.
Finally, in the same line as Michel Foucault’s work, pragmatic sociology has
shown that behaviour is also controlled through the most material aspects of
institutions. As Jean-Philippe Heurtin has explained, the architectural apparatus
of parliamentary assembly rooms used since 1789 – face-to-face, circles,
hemicycles, etc. – contributes to ordering speech within the institution. More
recently, Delphine Gardey has looked behind the scenes at the Palais
Bourbon and highlighted how important administrative staff – stenographers,
administrators, bailiffs, etc. – are in the way practices are institutionalised at
the Assemblée nationale. By reminding us that institutions are above all made of
bodies and things, these studies pave the way for new avenues that remain to be
explored. They encourage the sociology of political institutions to stop focusing
solely on professional politicians and to also address other aspects, including the
everyday activities which have often been ignored (because they are considered
marginal and not strictly political) and yet which contribute to perpetuating the
institutional order.

Today, analysis stands to gain the most from pursuing research at the margins of
political institutions . First, because administrative staff are often attached to
political institutions on a more long-term basis than professional politicians and
therefore carry with them an institutional memory that contributes to routinising
practices. This is particularly true for the General Secretariat of the government,
the General Secretariat of the Élysée and the administrators at the Assemblée
nationale and the Sénat. It would also be reasonable to assume that because of
how they are trained (often in legal studies) and selected (through competitive
entrance exam) and because of their status (usually civil servants) and their
missions (providing solely technical assistance), these actors tend to identify
with the institution more than the politicians whom they serve. Their
relationship to the institution certainly warrants analysing to the same extent as
that of political actors.

Moreover, certain institutional actors are in a particular heuristic position, at the

intersection of several social and institutional worlds. This is particularly true of
members of Ministry offices and the staff of elected officials, but also
presidents of Parliamentary groups, rapporteurs, etc. Focusing on these
individuals could address two of the blind spots in current research. Until now,
political institutions have been considered in isolation, resulting in segmented
knowledge of the space they compose. Working on people who lie at the
intersection of several political institutions would offer a way of understanding
the impact of the vertical and horizontal interdependent relationships linking
them together. Finally, certain actors also play a role as an interface with the
public. For example, a team of sixty-three people sorts through the
correspondence received by the President of the Republic and responds to the
requests, complaints, and comments sent to the Élysée. And when people appeal
to their elected officials, in town halls or local constituencies, it is the
representatives’ staff who deals with their complaints. Studying these
“marginal” actors and their activities would therefore afford an understanding of
the relationship between ordinary citizens and political institutions, an issue that
is all too often left to the remit of opinion polls and communications advisors.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to establish the interplay of political
institutions and administration. The learner has been exposed to the basic facts
on the legitimation of political institutions and its powers.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to discuss the relationships between
administration and political institutions. In addition, the legal basis of political
institutions, political institutions as forms of social domination, and gender as a
means for legitimating political institutions were discussed. Added is
behavioural control in politics and administration.
 Unit 3: Institutional Setting and Administration

1.0 Introduction
Here, we shall discuss the orthodoxy in thinking concerning how the political
system functions in relation to administration. This centres on the study of
public policy as they constitute the dominant body of knowledge on the causes
and consequences of governmental action.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
a. Identify the different definitions of public policy and government,
b. Describe the relationship between politics and policy,
c. Discuss the theories of policy process, and
d. Explain the problems and challenges of policy making.

Main Contents
Concept of public policy
What is public policy? Or what makes policy public? How are policy decisions
made? What are the implications of policy decisions for the distribution of
power in a society? These questions provide a broad cover for other issues
pertaining to the nature and processes of policy making. These broad questions
are central to the concern of politics with “who gets what” since ultimately the
process of policy making is the process by which “values are authoritatively
allocated” within a society. We shall seek to illustrate the problems of public
policy making with specific allusions to the case histories of the policy process
in developing countries.

Human conduct is generally governed by what is sometimes loosely referred to

as ‘policy’. In this broad sense, everyone would seem to have one policy or
another regulating one’s behaviour or action. Thus, it is conceivable to talk of
private policies, policies which help to regulate the conduct of people in their
private domains. Private policies are, however, restricted in terms of scope and
expected impact. The decision of an individual ‘not to eat breakfast’ could be
regarded as a private policy intended to regulate the nutritional behaviour of that
individual. This behaviour is private to the extent that there are no demands
made on other people to conform to such behaviour by denying them the
pleasure and delight of a delicious breakfast.

But what makes a policy ‘public’? What, in other words, distinguishes public
policy from, say, private policy? There are several ways of characterizing public
policy. Hogwood and Gunn (1984) have attempted a scheme for categorizing
the variety of different ways in which the word ‘policy’ is used. Many
definitions of public policy abound "and it may simply be futile trying to
discover which is correct or proper. However, at a broad level, public policy
will refer to the relationship of a government unit to its environment Thomas
Dye, simply defined public policy as “whatever governments choose to do or
not to do.” Other definitions associate public policy with purposive behaviour.
In this regard, public policy is viewed as “a purposive course of action followed
by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of a concern.

What makes policies distinctively ‘public’ is that they are “developed by

governmental bodies and officials.” The special character of public policies
stems from the fact that they are formulated by what David Easton has called
the “authorities”, that is, those persons who“engage in the daily affairs of a
political system”, are “recognized by most members of the system as having
responsibility for these matters” and take decisions that are “accepted as binding
most of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits of
their roles.

Following Anderson, it is possible to isolate some key elements which

distinguish public policy from other types of policies. These elements are as
follows:
1. Public policy is purposive or goal-oriented action rather than random or
chance behaviour.
2. Public policy consists of courses or patterns of action by governmental
officials
3. Public policy is what governments actually do, not what they intend to do
or say they are going to do.
4. Public policy involves some form of overt government action to affect a
particular problem; it also involves a decision by government officials not
to take action, to do nothing, on some matter on which governmental
involvement is sought.
5. Public policy is based on law and is authoritative. In other words, public
policy has an authoritative, potentially legally coercive quality that the
policies of private organisations do not have.

Public policy is directed towards a purpose, it is a goal-oriented action. It is not

a random or chance behavior. Public policy does not just happen. ‘Public policy
consists of courses or patterns of action by governmental officials. It is not their
separate individual or discrete decisions. E. g. A policy will include not-only the
decision to make a law about environment, but also subsequent decision relating
to the enforcement of that environmental law.

Public policy is what governments actually do in regulating trade, controlling

inflation, drugs, and promoting health and public housing etc. Public policy is
not what governments intend to do or say they are going to do. Public policy
may be positive or negative. E. g. government may decide to do something or
may decide to do nothing about a particular matter. Public policy is based on
law, therefore it is authoritative. Accordingly, it must be obeyed. Failure to obey
the law on that policy will attract sanctions like imprisonment or fine.

The study of "public, policy has developed to have various sections which
include: public policy analysis, theories of the policy process, policy
development and implementation; to these may be added programme
development and implementation. So far as it is observed in practice, the
commonest practitioners of bureaucratic method of administration, and the
greatest formulators and implementers of public policies are members of the
public service of any public organization. The public service is the next and
final consideration of this work.

The public service represents the employees of government. They are those
responsible for the functioning of government through the implementation of
government policies. Such policies include welfare services rendered to the
citizens. The public service is therefore made up of workers in government
ministries, parastatals and agencies. Workers in the Ministry of Education,
Central Bank-of Nigeria, etc. are all members of the public service. Within the
public service, we have the civil service, which constitute the inner core, or the
heart of the public service.

From the period of Nigerian independence in 1960 to1967, there were five
public services (the Federal Public Service, the Public service of Eastern
Region, Northern Region, Mid-Western Region and Western Region). At the
end of the Nigerian civil war in 1970 a Public Service Review Commission (the
Udoji Commission) was set up to among other things, harmonise the structure
and organisation of the public service of Nigeria.28 In 1974 the Udoji
Commission came out with a recommendation for results oriented and unified
structure of public service for the whole country. This implies that
recruitment/appointment, promotion, remuneration, retirement, discipline
dismissal became governed by the same conditions all over the country.

In 1988, there was another review, the Phillips Civil Service Review Panel (The
Nigerian Federal Civil Service in the mid 80s and Beyond) which according to
the government was aimed at streamlining the public service along the lines of
the presidential system of government, with the purpose of making the public
service responsive to the Structural Adjustment Programme. One of the
recommendations of the review was that heads of ministries be called Directors
General instead of Permanent Secretaries. The review also recommended
specialization in the ministry where the officer found himself. The appointment
of the Directors General became political and the Directors General were
required to retire with the president who appointed them.

The latest review of the civil service was undertaken by the Allison Ayida Panel
on Civil Service Reform which submitted its report in July, 1995. The panel
examined the 1988 reform and suggested far-reaching changes. Based on the
panel’s recommendation, the Provisional Ruling Council, PRC, directed that the
post of director-general should revert back to the status of permanent secretary
and accounting officer of the ministry.

The relevance or importance and centrality of the public service to public

administration cannot be over-emphasised. It is the public service that ensures
the continuity of government, acts as Custodian and protector of the public
interest and public treasury against violation by the ruling class. The public
service, particularly their civil service is supposed to be politically neutral, and
should faithfully serve any political master. They enjoy security of tenure of
office and anonymity in the performance of their duties.

What is government?
As an activity, policy making is located squarely within the context of
government. But what is government and what does it do? People’s appreciation
of government is as a set of institutions making and enforcing laws. Thus, we
speak of institutions of government such as the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary. These institutions are also assigned specific functions in furtherance
of the purpose of government. There are also agencies of government such as
the civil bureaucracy, the police, and prisons etc. which perform sundry
functions that are contingent on the goal of government.

But to express government merely as a set of institutions performing specified

functions is to simplify a complex phenomenon. A fundamental characteristic of
government is that it creates and allocates values. Indeed, it is a fundamental
concept of politics that any governmental action, be this the laws passed by
legislatures or the rules made and applied by administrators or decisions made
by the courts, have the intent or the effect of creating and allocating values.

The point, of course, is that governmental actions which seek to create or

promote certain values also involve the allocation of values among the diverse
groups composing the society and generally entail the unequal (although not
necessarily unjust) distribution of values. In addition, governmental actions also
entail uneven maximisation pattern among values. In other words, governments
discriminate as to what values to create or promote among competing values
and which societal groups benefit from what values. Significantly, the creation
and allocation of values through governmental action entail costs to some
elements of society in that the maximisation of one or a set of values invariably
requires some costs in terms of minimisation or deprivation of other values.

A related issue derives from the philosophical speculation concerning the end of
government. Government, it is generally believed, ought to promote the public
interest and all governments invariably justify their actions as being in the
public interest. A venerable notion of politics held by political philosophers
from Aristotle to the present is that government is a public activity that involves
public purposes, or public interests, or a public good, or some distinctly ‘public’
aspect of human life. This concept of the public interest entails the ideas that
governmental actions ought to create and promote values that are for the good
of the general public and that are made with the welfare of most of society in
mind.

Ascribing a public interest concern to governmental actions will no doubt

generate much controversy. In any case, such an understanding of the purpose
of government reflects poorly the popular perception of government as the Self-
seeking and self-promoting activity of ambitious politicians. Neither common
experience nor systematic research would seem to give much support to the
postulation that government is motivated by a concern for the public good. At
best the notion of public interest could only have been a normative expectation
of what ought to be the end of government.

A key attribute of government is its authority, that is, its right to make,
administer and enforce legally binding policies and rules on its citizens. The
notion that governmental actions are under guarded by authority dates back to
Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle argued against those who say that all kinds of
authority are identical and sought to distinguish the authority of those who
occupy governmental roles from other forms of authority such as the master
over the slave.“ Government, by this argument, functions with respect to society
as a whole and its rules are legally binding on all people within the
government’s legal jurisdiction. Indeed, Aristotle defines the polis, or political
association as the ‘most sovereign and inclusive association’. The German
scholar, Max Weber has extended our understanding of the authoritative basis
of governmental action by postulating that an association should be called
political ‘if and in so far as the enforcement of its order is carried out
continually within a given territorial area by the application and threat of
physical force on the part of the administrative staff.

Thus, a government policy is an authoritative plan of action for the promotion

and allocation of selected values, which is deemed by governmental authority to
be in the common interest of the people A policy consists of some general or
specific goal which policy makers hope to attain including the general course of
action to be followed and the specific means by which the goal is to be pursued.

Politics and policy

The foregoing preliminary comments immediately suggest some form of
relationship between politics and public policy. The concern of politics is with
what Easton (1965) refers to as “the authoritative allocation of Values".
Easton’s definition of politics is very instructive because it points to the critical
elements in the linkage between politics and public policy. First, is the issue of
values. Values are the things that people desire and pursue with a fair amount of
intensity. Values are not only many, but they vary with individuals. What is at
issue here is the scarcity of resources relative to the many and varied values of
individuals. Allocation therefore becomes an imperative function of politics
because of the obvious lag between societal resources and the many and
conflicting claims that people make. It bears emphasizing that the allocation
function is reserved exclusively for what is called an authority, the reason being
that were allocation to be left free for all, society will, in all probability, return
to the anarchy of the state of nature.

The etymology of authority should not delay us here. It is only sufficient to note
that it is authority which legitimizes the political process by which values are
allocated. Significantly, authorities, properly so called, are responsible for
resolving the conflict of interests which necessarily arises out of the competing
demands which people make. There is a paradoxical aspect to politics which is
evident from this discussion, namely, that the political process is at once a
conflict generating and a conflict resolution process. As authorities seek to
allocate values, they make judgmental decisions which are favourable to some
and unfavourable to others. The cumulative decisions which authorities make
are what we generally refer to as public policies. This is another way of saying
that public policy is the output of the political process of value allocation.

The linkage between politics and public policy should by now be fairly obvious.
Public policy is what authorities do when they are seized with the political
process of sharing societal resources among competing values.

The policy cycle

Policy making is a complex activity involving a pattern of action, extending
over time and involving many decisions. A policy is not synonymous with a
single decision as a course of action; it is useful to conceive of policy making as
a processual activity involving a series of distinct stages which constitute what
we here refer to as he policy cycle.
All policies originate from demands or claims made upon public officials by
other actors, private or official, in the political system for action or inaction on
some perceived problems. A demand is a request that government should do
something about a problem. Public policies are designed, almost invariably, to
satisfy or meet the demands or claims made on public officials.

All policies involve decision making by public officials that authorize or give
direction and content to public policy actions. Decision-making involves the
choice of an alternative from a series of competing alternatives. Some decisions
which affect public policy actions are fundamental while others are largely
routine and are made by officials in the day-to-day application of public policy.

An important aspect of the policy cycle is the formal expression or articulation

of public policy by public officials through statements and speeches they make
indicating the intentions and goals of government and what will be done to
realize them. Policy-statements are, of course, sometimes ambiguous.
Sometimes public Officials pronounce on aspects of policy as a means of
‘testing the turf’ or gauging the public mood concerning actions that
government intends to initiate.

The policy cycle comes to maturity with policy outputs, that is, the ‘tangible
manifestations of public policies, the things actually done in pursuance of policy
decisions and statements. The study of public policy as policy output clearly
demonstrates the wide gulf that exists between policy pronouncements and the
actual acts of government. Policy outcomes complete the policy cycle. Policy
outcomes are the consequences for society, intended or unintended, that flow
from action or inaction by government. Concern with policy outcomes directs
our attention to the impact of public policies, namely, whether policies meet the
original goals which led to their enactment.

The policy cycle corresponds to what in conventional usage is referred to as the

policy process. The policy process is characterized by distinct stages which
include; Agenda Setting, Formulation, Adoption, implementation and
Evaluation. The policy agenda is the list of subjects or problems to which
governmental officials, and people outside of government closely associated
with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time.
Agenda setting refers to the stage in the policy process when officials attempt to
narrow the number of subjects which come to their attention to the set which
will actually become the focus of their attention. The policy formulation stage is
the stage at which the alternatives for dealing with a public problem are
developed. This is the stage at which a set of alternatives for governmental
action is seriously considered by governmental officials. The policy adoption
stage is the stage when an authoritative choice among specified alternatives is
made by governmental officials. At the implementation stage, administrators
carry out policies that have been adopted by formal political office-holders.
Finally, during the evaluation stage of the policy process, the concern is with
the estimation, assessment, or appraisal of policy, including its content,
implementation, and effects.

The linkage among the stages in the policy process would appear obvious. After
all, problems must receive the attention of policy makers who then must
contemplate the list of potential alternatives for policy choices which are, in
turn, legitimated through an adoption procedure. As policy makers contemplate
the outcome of the decisions they make in terms of their impact on the relevant
publics, new problems may be generated, and the cycle goes on.

Significantly, for each stage in the policy process, there are distinct sets of
actors whose relevance is determined, largely, by the resources which they
command. Actors in the policy process could be proximate or auxiliary, visible
or hidden. With respect to agenda setting, for example, elected officials and
their appointees are dominant actors, while alternatives, proposals and solutions
are generated largely within communities of specialists. There is equally an
agreement that bureaucrats are dominant at the implementation stage of the
policy process.

What make the contribution of these actors significant are the resources which
each command. Elected officials and their appointees command a set of
institutional as well as organisational resources with which they dominate the
public’s attention. Through these enormous resources, these officials are well
positioned to set the policy agenda. Professional staffers as well as academic
researchers and consultants, on the other hand, dominate the alternative
specification stage by invoking their reservoir of special skills and knowledge.
The dominance of civil service bureaucrats at the implementation stage of the
policy process owes largely to their acknowledged experience and power of
administrative discretion.

The idea of a policy process gives the impression of a sequential, orderly

process of policy making. This is rarely so. For example, the impression that:
demands are claims made on the political system by individuals and groups in
the environment of the political system neglects the view that government
through its own deliberate actions instigates and generates demands which form
the basis of policy decisions. What cannot be controverted, however, is that the
process of policy making involves quite a significant number of actors, some
proximate, others auxiliary. As a result of the multitude of actors in the policy
process, the question of who makes policy remains problematic. While it is
accepted that individuals, societal groups and government institutions and
agencies are key actors in policy making, the specific mode of their impact on
the policy process has been a matter for theoretical disputation.

Theories of the policy process

The linkage between the study of politics and the study of public policy comes
into bold relief when we examine the theoretical approaches that have been
adapted to the analysis of the policy making process. A preliminary point of
observation is that none of these theories was developed for the study of public
policy, “yet each offers a separate way of thinking about policy and even
suggests some of the general causes and consequences of public policy. A more
significant point, however, is the intended role of theory in policy analysis.
First, theories of the policy process are intended as descriptive models for
understanding the causes and consequences of governmental action. Second,
these theories are also extendedly prescriptive, that is, they are normative
specifications of what and how policies ought to be.

Finally, there is a need to distinguish between theories of policy-making and

theories of decision making. This distinction is necessary in view of the
conceptual confusion that comes from overlapping usage of the words; ‘policy’
and ‘decision’. Decision making is a component of policy making. While
decision making involves the choice of an alternative from a series of
competing alternatives, policy making typically involves a pattern of action;
extending over time and involving many decisions, some routine, some not so
routine. Theories of decision making are concerned with how choices among
competing alternatives are made while theories of policy making help to clarify
and simplify our thinking and suggest possible explanations for public policy.

From the foregoing distinction between decision making and policy making, we
can make a further categorization of the theories of the policy process based on
the level of analysis of policy making. We thus make a distinction between
macro and micro theories of the policy process. At the micro level of analysis;
the concern is with explaining the behaviour of individuals and groups engaged
in the empirical activities involved in decision making Macro theorizing, on the
other hand, is based on analytical frameworks which are, in the main, systemic
and are concerned with the bigger and more fundamental questions relating to
vested interests and the distribution of economic and political power within a
society.

The role of theory in political analysis is to give direction to inquiry in the study
of policy making theories provide needed guidelines for focusing our effort in
weaving through the mass of data in the field. According to Thomas Dye,
theoretical models of policy analysis are useful because they:
 1. Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and public policy;
2. Identify important aspects of policy problems;
3. Help us to communicate with each other by focusing on essential features
of political life;
4. Direct our efforts to understand public policy better by suggesting what is
important and what is unimportant; and
5. Suggest explanations for public policy and predict its consequences.

Problems of policy formulation and implementation

A compelling inference from the foregoing discussion is the divergence
between theory and practice in choice making and the consequences of this
divergence for governmental actions on the one hand and the difference that
public policies make, on the other. Were public policies to flow from the
prescriptions of rational theories, for example, it can be expected that
government will make a whole lot of difference in the life of people.

The popular impression however, is that, public policies do not work. In

general, people point to the failure of public policies to meet their elementary
needs and they blame government for these lapses. The verdicts which people
return on their governments in consequence of their negative experiences with
public policies raise serious questions about the legitimacy of government and,
hence, of its authority to make binding decisions. The difference between
political systems could very well depend on the capacity of governments to
make public policies which will work.

What, then, is the nature of the policy-making process and what factors account
for the success or failure of governments in making and implementing policy
choices? We shall seek answers to these questions drawing on the experiences
of the so-called developing nations in policy formulation and implementation.

Those who have sought to analyze why developing nations frequently fall short
of their goals speak in terms of a peculiar “failure-prone policy process.”
According to economist Albert Hirschman, the fundamental problem of
developing nations lies in the inability of their policy-makers to make decisions
that will induce development due to certain psychological and social structural
inadequacies that inhibit them from bringing to bear the needed amount of
knowledge and commitment to make proper judgments about the allocation of
resources.

Hirschman argues that it is fashionable for developing countries to opt for

comprehensive or fundamental solutions to policy problems. The choice that
these countries make, according to Hirschman, compounds the failure of policy
for two reasons. First, developing countries hardly possess governments with
the policy-making apparatus adequate to the task of producing a comprehensive
programme. Second, this inadequacy is met with the introduction of policy
‘solutions -from 'elsewhere,’ usually from advanced developed economies,
solutions which are hardly suitable to local problems. The adoption of foreign
solutions, in turn, undermines the capacity of local intellectual resources to act
on local problems, deepens the underdevelopment of local talents and deprives
them of the opportunity to master the problems on their own terms.

The evidence for the failure-prone thesis provided by the critical aspects of the
policy formulation and implementation processes. A key activity in policy
formulation is goal setting. Policy makers in developing countries engage in the
elaborate exercise of goal setting by creating structures for planning. As
policymakers make a fetish of planning as a basis for development, it would
appear that the more they planned, the less development is achieved. Far from
not trying, policy-makers in developing countries are, indeed, guilty of trying
too much to plan and set goals and targets for national development. To what do
we attribute the lag between the expectations and realisations of policy-makers
in developing countries?

The failure prone policy process thesis argues that policy-makers in the
developing nations are guilty of setting unrealistic goals. The thesis argues
further that the policy formulation process engenders expectations among the
people which can hardly be matched by the capacities of the system. Goals are
unrealistic because they are set at very comprehensive levels, because decision
makers lack reliable information on which to base their calculations and
sometimes, because the possibility of expressing alternative policy options is
either suppressed or non-existent.

The propensity for policy failure is pronounced at the implementation stage of

the policy process in developing countries. The possibility of carrying through
with policy programmes and implementing policy choices is circumscribed by
administrative, economic and political constraints.

Administrative constraints include, among others, the lack of trained experts to

administer the complex programmes and projects which comprehensive goals
and plans demand and the negative consequences of the conflict of roles
between elected political office holders and appointed officials in the civil
service bureaucracy.

Public policies also fail in developing countries because of lack of funds to pay
for the many projects and programmes tied to these policies. Governments of
developing countries are unable to finance their projects and programmes on
account of the indebtedness of their countries and the reluctance of international
financial institutions to sustain the profligacy and indiscipline which led to the
indebtedness, in the first place. Funds from donor agencies are equally
unavailable because of the severe conditionalities attached to these funds which
developing nations are unable or unwilling to fulfill. In addition, the capacity of
developing nations to source funds internally is severely limited.

Political considerations severely constrain successful policy implementation in

developing countries. Many of these countries belong to the category of what
Gunnar Mydal (I990) referred to as “soft states.” These states suffer from
severe/acute social indiscipline such as corruption, arbitrary enforcement of the
law, lax or nonexistent enforcement of the law and abuse of power. These
pathologies are without prejudice to regime types and the standards of morality
in these states. A major source of these social pathologies could be located in
the attempt to enforce an amazing array of official restrictions and regulations
that amount to an open invitation to bribery and payoffs. The economics of
many of these countries are choked to death by innumerable regulations
administered by innumerable persons.

Perhaps the social indiscipline alluded to above could have been moderated but
for the comparatively underdeveloped state of countervailing powers in
developing countries. In other words, there are few checks on unrestrained and
‘abused power of a dominant executive and its representatives.

The ‘failure-prone’ thesis is a frightening characterization of the empirical

world of policy-makers in developing countries. The implications of this thesis
are doubly frightening especially in the inferable judgment that these countries
are doomed to policy failures. Such a conclusion is, in our view, both
uncharitable and defeatist. It is uncharitable because it denies altruism to policy
makers in developing countries. It is defeatist because it signals a fatality by
unwittingly denying the possibility of efficacious public policies in these
countries.

In what follows, we shall account for the limited explanatory power of the
failure-prone thesis in terms of the neglect of the analysis of the context of
social action which defines the possibilities and limitations of policy-making.
What are the peculiarities of the policy environment in the developing countries
of the world and in what ways do these peculiarities affect the discharge of the
policy-making function in these countries?

In emphasizing the criticality of the context for the analysis of the efficacy of
public policies, we shall, following Claude Ake (1981), impress the theoretical
point that human beings (including policy-makers) are largely products of their
environment; that they do not act in a vacuum; that whatever it is they do, they
do so always in response to the necessities of the situation in which they find
themselves; that the environment, in other words, shapes their values,
preferences, attitudes and behaviour.

What, then, are the necessities of the conditions under which policy-makers
operate in developing countries? This question calls for the stipulation of the
objective realities which confront policy-makers as they seek to make policy
choices.

A critical factor which conditions policy behaviour in the developing countries

is economic dependence. Economic dependence is a feature of post-colonial
societies because the colonial masters never really left their colonies, the fact of
political independence notwithstanding. In the Nigerian case, for example, the
successor policy-elite did not tight the colonial system to change it but merely
to inherit it. The logic of colonialism did not allow the Nigerian policy class to
be anything more than marginal economically being weak economically; this
class relied on politics and mass mobilisation to come to power. Regardless of
the long period of ascension to power, the policy class remains weak
economically partly because of the dependent structure of the inherited
economy. As a result of their weak material base the policy class continues to
use political power for the accumulation of wealth.

But how is political power acquired? What, in other words, is the nature of
politics or the form of struggle or competition to control the commanding
heights of the state where the main decisions about public policy are made and
enforced? Political competition of Nigeria is very intense largely because of the
pervasiveness of state power. The state is everywhere and its might appears
boundless. Control of state power assures the total dominance of the holders
while all others remain losers. The state subserves the interests of those who
control it, runs by rules of the dominant class and is, by implication, incapable
of mediating political competition, as speculated in liberal political theory.

The linkage between the economy and policy behaviour is very instructive. A
dependent economy coheres with a dependent state. Together they breed a
category of policymakers who are materially weak and who crave political
power in order to amass wealth.

The implication of this linkage is that public policies are made on the basis of
political considerations. Major economic policies in Nigeria are replete with
economic irrationalities and have, therefore, been limited in their developmental
impacts. Political considerations govern the utilization of manpower so much so
that critical positions where policy decisions are taken about the commanding
heights of the economy are filled with those who are politically safe, but who
may have limited and/or inappropriate technical knowhow.

The political imperative of public policy decisions is nowhere demonstrated as

in the expanding economic role of the state. State economic expansionism has
been rationalized on altruistic grounds. But it would appear that as the state’s
role in the economy expands, so also does the opportunities for appropriation by
those who control state power. Policy-makers have simply written themselves
into the policy-decisions they formulate and implement. State economic
expansion has led, not unexpectedly, to irrational and inefficient bureaucracies
and parastatals whose burdens, especially with dwindling revenue, have become
unduly heavy on the socio-economy.

The challenge of public policy making

What are the possibilities of a ‘success-prone policy process’ in countries with
track records of policy failures? The subsisting solutions to the policy problems
of developing countries have been short on success. It may very well be a case
of too many easy solutions flying around. It is, for example, logical to blame
government for policy failures. After all, government is assumed to have all the
power to allocate and create values. Following upon this logic, we are inclined
to want to change the personnel of government as though that in all that counts
in instituting successful policies.

A lot of times, too, we blame our policy-makers for policy failures. This is also
a logical thing to do. We psychologies the problem of policy failures by
perceiving it as something arising from the defective character of our policy
matters whom we judge as incapable of making the correct choices.

But we may very well be dead wrong. Our focus on government as the root of
policy failures may be misplaced by bringing one government down and
installing or supporting a new one we may not have thereby improved on policy
fortunes. Ake’ s argument is premised on the useful distinction he made
between the ruling class and government suggesting, in effect, that the ruling
class is in power (always) while the government is only in office: The import of
Ake’s penetrating analysis is that we concentrate too much energy in reforming
governments and its institutions believing that therein lies the key to a success-
prone policy process and in so doing, we leave virtually untouched our inherited
dependent economic structure and its corresponding state structure.

Given the nature of the policy environment in developing countries as sketched

in the foregoing, what would amount to solutions to successful policy making
are, indeed, no more than guideposts. For a start, it does not appear that we
could get anywhere near stipulating the conditions for up turning the failure
prone policy process of these countries without addressing the problems of the
political context of policymaking.

Public policies can be made to reflect the interests of the vast majority of the
people in developing countries if politics in these countries is democratized. A
crucial aspect of this process is the accommodation rather than the repression of
the political expression of dissent. The capacity of the ruling class in developing
nations to mobilize the vast majority of their people around national purposes
and policies is contingent on this accommodation. That, the ruling class has not
been sufficiently sensitive to this necessity is primarily responsible for the
continuing failure of policy decisions in these countries.

Democracy engenders effective policy formulation and implementation in at

least two ways. First, the institutions of government would be able to assume
their constitutional role in the policy making process. Significantly, democratic
rule is expected to engender the participation of the people in the policy making
process through direct actions and indirectly through their representatives.

Second, policy implementation can also be expected to come under popular

control. An absurd legacy of military rule in developing nations is the almost
total appropriation of power by the military political authorities and the civil
service bureaucracy. The culpability and scandalous philistinism of the civil
service bureaucracy in the decadence of military rule deserves more attention
than it has hitherto received. Suffice it to say that during the period of military
rule, soldier-politicians and their civil service cohorts virtually ran away with
the government. The promise of civil democratic rule in that government and its
associated agencies and processes would be subjected to constitutional scrutiny
especially through the legislative oversight of the executive branch.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to establish the concepts of public policy and
government, the relationships between the two concepts, the policy cycle,
theories of policy process, and problems and challenges of public policy
making.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to discuss the relationships between
institutional settings and administration. In addition, the concepts of
government and policy were discussed as well as policy cycle, theories of
policy process and problems and challenges of public policy making in
developing countries.
Unit 4: Decision Making in Administration

1.0 Introduction
The making of decisions, and specifically of bundles of decisions, is clearly
central to any administrative activities in policy making. Although policy-
making also relates to the acts of initiation and implementation, the making of
decisions and reaching of conclusions is usually seen as its key feature.
However, it may be difficult to establish how and why decisions are made.
Decisions are undoubtedly made in different ways by individuals and by groups,
within small bodies and within large organizations, and within democratic and
authoritarian structures.

The focus of this unit is to identify and operationalise the concept decision
making and its theoretical bases. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the concept of decision making
arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are
therefore, expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Understand the different definitions of decision making, and
2. Discuss the theories of decision making.

Main Contents
Decision Making
Decision making is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection
of a belief or a course of action among several alternative possibilities. Every
decision-making process produces a final choice, which may or may not prompt
action. Decision-making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives
based on the values, preferences and beliefs of the decision makers.
Decision-making can be regarded as a problem-solving activity terminated by a
solution deemed to be optimal, or at least satisfactory. It is therefore a process
which can be more or less rational or irrational and can be based
on explicit or tacit knowledge and beliefs. Tacit knowledge can be obtained by
experience or reflection, for instance. It might be something that you are not
able to put in words, as opposed to explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is often
used to fill the gaps in complex decision making processes. Usually both of
these types of knowledge, tacit and explicit, are used in decision-making
process together. Explicit knowledge is less likely to result in major decisions
than tacit knowledge, which means that the decision-making process usually
relies on knowledge acquired through experience.
Human performance has been the subject of active research from several
perspectives: Psychological: examining individual decisions in the context of a
set of needs, preferences and values the individual has or seeks. Cognitive: the
decision-making process regarded as a continuous process integrated in the
interaction with the environment. Normative: the analysis of individual
decisions concerned with the logic of decision-making, or communicative
rationality, and the invariant choice it leads to. A major part of decision-making
involves the analysis of a finite set of alternatives described in terms of
evaluative criteria. Then the task might be to rank these alternatives in terms of
how attractive they are to the decision-maker(s) when all the criteria are
considered simultaneously. Another task might be to find the best alternative or
to determine the relative total priority of each alternative (for instance, if
alternatives represent projects competing for funds) when all the criteria are
considered simultaneously. Solving such problems is the focus of multiple-
criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This area of decision-making, although very
old, has attracted the interest of many researchers and practitioners and is still
highly debated as there are many MCDA methods which may yield very
different results when they are applied on exactly the same data. This leads to
the formulation of a decision-making paradox.
Logical decision-making is an important part of all science-based professions,
where specialists apply their knowledge in a given area to make informed
decisions. For example, medical decision-making often involves a diagnosis and
the selection of appropriate treatment. But naturalistic decision-making research
shows that in situations with higher time pressure, higher stakes, or increased
ambiguities, experts may use intuitive decision-making rather than structured
approaches. They may follow a recognition primed decision that fits their
experience and arrive at a course of action without weighing alternatives.
The decision-makers environment can play a part in the decision-making
process. For example, environmental complexity is a factor that influences
cognitive function. A complex environment is an environment with a large
number of different possible states which come and go over time. Studies done
at the University of Colorado have shown that more complex environments
correlate with higher cognitive function, which means that a decision can be
influenced by the location. One experiment measured complexity in a room by
the number of small objects and appliances present; a simple room had less of
those things. Cognitive function was greatly affected by the higher measure of
environmental complexity making it easier to think about the situation and
make a better decision.
 Decision Making Theories
This body of theories is concerned with how decision makers go about choosing
the alterative(s) for achieving defined goals. There are two polar theories of
decision making. This polarity is reflected in “the debate between writers who
analyse decision making by reference to rational models and writers who
portray decision making as an incremental process”. Somehow, the point of
contrast between the two theoretical poles is established by reference to rational
theories as the ideal which could only have been intended to be prescriptive,
while incremental theories are paraded as descriptive of how decisions makers
act in the real world. As polar views of the same phenomenon, rational and
incremental theories harbour other theoretical approaches to decision making
which attempt to overcome the unrealism of the ideal type rational model as
well as the ‘incompleteness’ of incremental approaches. We shall examine the
two polar theories in some detail below. In addition, we shall highlight the
contributions of the middle way theories especially in overcoming the
deficiencies of rational and incremental theories of decision making.

Nevertheless, a number of general theories of decision-making have been

advanced The most important of these are the following: rational actor models;
incremental models; bureaucratic organization models and belief system
models.

Rational actor models

Decision-making models that emphasize human rationality have generally been
constructed on the basis of economic theories that have themselves been derived
from utilitarianism. Such ideas provide the basis for public-choice theories,
developed by thinkers such as Downs (1957), and enthusiastically taken up by
the New Right. At the heart of such theories lies the notion of so-called
‘economic man’, a model of human nature that stresses the self-interested
pursuit of material satisfaction, calculated in terms of utility. In this light,
decisions can be seen to be reached using the following procedures:
1. The nature of the problem is identified.
2. An objective or goal is selected on the basis of an ordering of individual
preferences.
3. The available means of achieving this objective are evaluated in terms of
their effectiveness, reliability, costs and so on, and
4. A decision is made through the selection of the means most likely to
secure the desired end.

This type of process assumes that clear-cut objectives exist, and that human
beings are able to pursue them in a rational and consistent manner. For this to
utility must be homogeneous: it must be possible to compare the amount of
action (pleasure or happiness) that each action would bring with that which
results from any other action. The best example of such an approach to decision
is found in the use of cost-benefit analysis in the making of business decisions.

The rational actor model is attractive, in part, because it reflects how most
people believe decisions should be made. Certainly, politicians and others are
inclined to portray their actions as both goal-orientated and the product of
thought and deliberation. When examined more closely, however, rational
action may not appear to be a particularly convincing model of decision
making. First place, the model is more easily applied to individuals, who may
have and or set of preferences, than it is to groups, within which there are likely
to be of conflicting objectives. Organizations may therefore be said to make
rational decisions only if they are highly centralized and possess a strict
command structure.

A second problem is that, in practice, decisions are often made on the basis of
inadequate and sometimes inaccurate information and the benefits of such
actions may in any case not be comparable. Is it possible, for instance, to know
the ‘costs’ of raising taxes with those of reducing healthcare provision? Such
difficulty encouraged Simon (1983) to develop the notion of ‘bounded rational
acknowledges that, as it is impossible to analyse and select all possible action.
Decision-making is essentially an act of compromising between different valued
and imprecisely calculated outcomes. Simon described this process as rational.
The final drawback of rational actor models is that they ignore the perception:
that is, the degree to which actions are shaped by belief and assumed about
reality, rather than by reality itself. Little or no importance is thus attractive to
the values and ideological leanings of decision-makers

Herbert Simon is closely associated with articulating the rational model of

decision-making beginning with his work titled Administrative Behaviour
(1945). A decision-maker operating according to the rational, comprehensive
model would follow the under listed procedure in arriving at a rational choice:
a. The decision maker defines his goals rather clearly and sets the levels of
achievement of those goals that would satisfy him.
b. The various alternatives that might achieve the goals would be canvassed.
c. The consequences that would follow from the selection of each
alternative would be investigated.
d. Each alternative and its attendant consequences would be compared with
the other alternatives.
e. The decision maker would choose that alternative which achieves his
goals at the least cost.
From the foregoing, it is clear that rational decision making involves the
selection of alternatives which will maximize the decision maker’s values, the
selection being made following a comprehensive analysis of alternatives and
their consequences.

The rational-comprehensive model raises a number of significant issues for the

analysis of decision making. The general impression is that the model does not
accurately describe the reality of decision making. In the first place, it is hardly
the case that decision-makers are faced with any concrete, clearly defined
problems. Defining a problem can, indeed, be a problem for the decision maker.
People do not set about to solve problems; rather solutions search for problems
(Kingdom). It is, perhaps, more to the point to argue, as Lindblom (1959, pp.
79-88) did, that people act in the absence of clearly defined goals and that it
might, in fact, be counterproductive, so to do.

A second basis of criticism of the rational model is over the issue of values. The
question is often raised as to whose values are used as a basis for making
decisions. There are two issues here: first, a decision situation is a situation of
value conflict rather than value consensus and “conflicting values, do not permit
comparison or weighing.” Second, there is the problem of the decision-maker
confusing his personal values with the larger organisational value. There is, of
course, the larger issue of separating facts from values, a problem that comes to
the fore in a means-end model such as the rational model of decision making.
The rational model stipulates the prior specification of means of reaching ends,
but the means a decision maker chooses for achieving specified ends (goals) are
hardly devoid of values.

A significant criticism of the rational comprehensive model is that the ability of

human beings to process information is more limited than what the mode
prescribes. In practice, decision makers rarely proceed in a logical,
comprehensive and purposive manner prescribed by the theory. It is humanly
impossible for decision makers to canvass all possible alternatives, be informed
about the consequences of each of these alternatives and choose the one best
option for attaining organisationally specified goals. Considerations of sunk
costs, that is, investments in existing programmes and policies may preclude the
canvassing of some alternatives by the decision maker. There are, in other
words, significant limitations to human rationality which-are reflected in
administrative behaviour.

Rational-comprehensive theory is presented as an idealised view of decision

making in organisations. But as March and Simon have indicated, actual
decisions are made under conditions of bounded rationality, a condition which
involves the decision-maker choosing an alternative intended not to maximise
his values but to be satisfactory or good enough. A significant implication of the
concept of bounded rationality is that decision makers use the most convenient
and least expensive information, not necessarily the information that will result
in the maximum amount of knowledge about the outcomes, alternatives, values
and probabilities involved in the decision. Put differently, decision-makers
rarely maximise goal attainment in their decisions. Rather, they sacrifice, that is,
they tend to evaluate decision alternatives against standards that set minimally
acceptable levels of attainment on each objective rather than maximum
standards. By so doing, decision-makers are able to overcome the rigorous
demands imposed by the ideal rational-comprehensive model.

Does the rational-comprehensive theory describe the way decisions are made in
the real world? Obviously, not as we noted earlier, decision making rarely
proceeds in the manner prescribed by the theory. There is a paradox, however.
This is that because rationality is taken as a virtue, decision-makers talk and
behave as though they conform to the dictates of the rational-comprehensive
theory in the decisions they make. They, in other words, imply that the rational
comprehensive theory is descriptive of how they act. This observation,
notwithstanding, it is safe to conclude that rational comprehensive theory is a
prescriptive theory which points in the direction of how perfect decisions can be
made.

Incremental models
Incrementalism is usually portrayed as the principal alternative to rational
decision making. David Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom (1963) termed this
‘disjointed incrementalism, neatly summed up by Lindblom (1959) as the
‘theory of muddling through’. This position holds that, in practice, decisions are
made on the basis of inadequate information and low levels of understanding
this discourages decision-makers from pursuing bold and innovative courses of
Policy-making is therefore a continuous, exploratory process: lacking over goals
and clear-cut ends, policy-makers tend to operate within an existing framework,
adjusting their position in the light of feedback in the form of intention about
the impact of earlier decisions. Indeed, incrementalism may sustain strategy of
avoidance or evasion, policy-makers being inclined to move away from
problems, rather than trying to solve them.

Lindblom’s case for incrementalism is normative as well as descriptive. Its

intention is to providing a more accurate account of how decisions are made in
the world, he argued that this approach also has the merit of allowing for
flexible the expression of divergent views. In this sense, it has a distinctly anti
character and well suited to policymaking in pluralist democracies: through at
least implies responsiveness and flexibility, consultation and compromise.
However, the model has also been criticized as profoundly conservative that it
justifies a bias against innovation and in favour of inertia. Policy makers who
embrace incrementalism are more likely to be concerned with day-to-day
problems than with indulging in long term visionary thinking. Their energy is
channeled into keeping the ship on course, not on reflecting on where that
course is leading.

The incremental model was offered by Charles Lindblom as a reaction to “the

literatures of decision-making, policy formulation, planning, and public
administration” which formalize the rational comprehensive model leaving
public administrators who handle complex decisions in the position of
practicing what few preach Lindblom was, however, very critical of the
assumptions of the rational comprehensive model and in its place he developed
the notion of incrementalism as an approach to how decisions are actually made
and a model for how decisions Should be made.

Lindblom indicted the rational comprehensive model of decision making on

account of its failure to adapt to:
i. Man’s limited problem-solving capacities;
ii. Inadequacy of information;
iii. The costliness of analysis;
iv. Failures in constructing a satisfactory evaluative method;
v. The closeness of observed relationships between fact and value in policy-
making;
vi. The openness of the system of variables with which it contends;
vii.The analyst’s need for strategic sequences of analytical moves;
and viii.The diverse forms in which policy problems actually arise.

What Lindblom proposed as an alternative to the rational comprehensive model

was the method he described as successive limited comparisons. Lindblom drew
a contrast between the method of successive limited comparisons which he
referred to as the branch method and the rational comprehensive method which
he called the root method. According to Lindblom, the root method which has
been formalised as the best way of arriving at decisions “is in fact not workable
for complex policy questions”, which is why most administrators use the
method of successive limited comparisons.

Incrementalism approaches decision making as a conservative activity. It is

assumed that new decisions are variations of past decisions; that decisions
makers accept existing decisions as satisficing and legitimate, and only make
small incremental, marginal adjustments in their current behaviour. By so
doing, decision makers hardly bother to canvass formidable numbers of far
reaching-changes, neither do they spend inordinate time defining their goals,
and that the comparisons they make between the current state of affairs and the
small adjustments to be made in current behaviour are within manageable
proportions. Decisions are, in other words, made “step-by-step” and by small
degrees.

Incrementalism is offered as both a descriptive and prescriptive theory of

decision making. Lindblom claims that the method of successive limited
comparisons is descriptive of “how most administrators do in fact approach
complex questions” in the real world understandably for reasons of limited
knowledge, time and money to fashion truly different decisions. These
limitations make it impossible to meet the rigorous conditionalities of the
rational comprehensive model. Significantly, as Thomas Dye notes,
“completely rational” policy may turn-out to be “inefficient” (despite the
contradiction in terms) of the time and cost of developing a rational policy are
excessive. In addition, decision makers are mindful of ‘sunk costs’ in existing
programmes which preclude their abandoning existing decisions for radically
new ones. Finally, the method of successive limited comparisons is politically
more expedient because it involves incremental changes in existing decisions
rather than the fundamental redistribution of social values As Dye has
concluded, incrementalism is important in reducing conflict, maintaining
stability, and preserving the political system itself.

The prescriptive import of the incremental approach is that it helps to avoid the
calamity of embarking on fundamental changes while leaving sufficient room
for the decision maker to test the wisdom of the course of action he had chosen.
It is also argued that incrementalism is a natural approach because it is
consistent with the nature of decision makers as human beings who rarely act to
maximise their values; who are hardly in search of the ‘one best way’ but who
would rather be content with what works. In short, incrementalism is presented
as a prescriptive model of how decision makers ought to act because it is the
rational thing to do.

There is much in incrementalism to support its descriptive claims. Yet,

questions arise especially over some of the assumptions inherent in the model.
The conservative slant of the incremental approach has been a source of critical
review of the model. It is argued, for example, that incrementalism is better
suited as a descriptive model of decision making under conditions of social
stability and continuity. But, many decision situations are hardly stable. For
many societies, stability is a questionable proposition. To, therefore, insist that
incrementalism is the preferred method for making decisions is to consign these
societies to continuing instability as new decisions continue to be based on
precedents that are themselves in need of overhaul It is in this regard that
incrementalism comes across, in the words of Yehezkel Dror “as an ideological
reinforcement of the pro-inertia and anti-innovation forces”. Incremental
decisions tend to reflect the values and preferences of dominant interests in
society while neglecting the interests of the underclass.

A further difficulty is that incrementalism sheds little light on those political

decisions that are radical, even revolutionary, in character. For instance, Stalins'
decision to launch the USSR’s First Five Year Plan in 1928, Castro 5 decision
to seize power in Cuba in 1959, and even Thatcher’s decision to ‘roll back the
state’ in the ”UK in the 1995, can hardly be described as incremental
adjustments. In View of such difficulties, Amitai Etzioni (1967) proposed the
idea of ‘mixed scanning’, which attempts to bridge the gap between “the
rational approach and incrementalism. Mixed scanning allows for decision-
making being carried out in two distinct phases. First, decision-makers broadly
evaluate, or scan, all the available policy options in terms of their effectiveness
in meeting pre existing objectives. Then, a narrower and more incremental
approach is adopted as the details of a selected policy option are reviewed. In
this way, for example, a broad decision to cut public spending must be
accompanied by a series of more narrowly focused decisions relating to the
specific areas or programmes that may be affected.

Mixed scanning
Rational comprehensive model and incrementalism have been presented as
polar views on decision behaviour. Although both theories would like to make
descriptive and prescriptive claims, it is fairly obvious that the strength of the
rational model lies in its prescriptive import. While the incremental approach is
essentially descriptive, it is equally obvious that the rational model suffers from
‘unrealism’ while the incremental approach is incomplete in its neglect of
fundamental decisions.

Mixed scanning was offered by sociologist Etzioni (1967) as a prescriptive

model which attempts to overcome the limitations of the rational and
incremental models by building on the strength of both. Mixed scanning takes
into account both fundamental and incremental decisions by providing for
“high-order, fundamental policy-making processes which set basic directions
and…incremental processes which prepare for fundamental decisions and work
them out after they have been reached”. Etzioni attempted to drive home the
efficacy of the mixed scanning strategy by using the following illustration:

Assuming we are about to set up a worldwide weather observation system using

weather satellites. The rationalistic approach would seek an exhaustive survey
of weather conditions by using cameras capable of detailed observations and by
scheduling reviews of the entire sky as often as possible. This would yield an
avalanche of details, costly to analyze and likely to overwhelm our action
capacities (e.g. “seeding” cloud formations that could develop into hurricanes or
bring rain to arid areas). Incrementalism would focus on those areas in which
similar patterns developed in the recent past and, perhaps, on a few nearby
regions; it would thus ignore all formations which might deserve attention if
they arose in unexpected areas.

A mixed-scanning strategy would include elements of both approaches by

employing two cameras: a broad-angle camera that would cover all parts of the
sky but not in great detail and a second one which would zero in on those areas
revealed by the first camera to require a more in-depth examination. While
mixed-scanning might miss areas in which, only a detailed camera could reveal
trouble, it is less likely than incrementalism to miss obvious trouble spots in
unfamiliar areas.

Etzioni provides the linkage between fundamental and incremental decisions.

According to him, fundamental decisions set the tone and direction within
which incremental decisions are made. Significantly, mixed scanning permits
the consideration of fundamental decisions through the use of the wide-angled
lenses without the obsession with detail and comprehensiveness as the radical
model demands. Incremental decisions follow from fundamental decisions by
permitting the detailed analysis of specific options through the use of the zoom
lens.

By so doing, Etzioni (1967) reasons that, each of the two elements in mixed
scanning helps to reduce the effects of the particular shortcomings of other;
incrementalism reduces the unrealistic aspects of rationalism by limiting the
details required in fundamental decisions, and contextuating rationalism helps to
overcome the conservative slant of incrementalism by exploring longer-run
alterative.

The mixed scanning model is a pointer to the fact that decisions come in
varying magnitude thus necessitating the need for either comprehensive or
incremental considerations. There are, however, no clear specifications as to the
criteria for delimiting the boundary between fundamental and incremental
decisions. It has, for example, been argued that the weight we assign to
decisions is contextually defined suggesting, in effect, that what is fundamental
rational in one context may be incremental in another.

Bureaucratic organization models

Both rational actor and incremental models are essentially black box theories of
decision-making; neither pays attention to the impact that the structure of the
policymaking process has on the resulting decisions. Bureaucratic or
organizational models, on the other hand, try to get inside the black box by
highlighting the degree to which process influences product. This approach was
pioneered by Allison (1971) in his examination of US and USSR decision-
making during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.Two contrasting, but related,
models emerged from this study. The first, usually called the organizational
process model, highlights the impact on decisions of the values, assumptions
and regular patterns of behaviour that are found in any large organization.
Rather than corresponding to rational analysis and objective evaluation,
decisions are seen to reflect the entrenched culture of the government
department or agency that makes them. The second theory, the ‘bureaucratic
politics’ model, emphasizes the impact on decisions of bargaining between
personnel and agencies each pursuing different perceived interests. This
approach dismisses the idea of the state as a monolith united around a single
view or a single interest, and suggests that decisions arise from an arena of
contest in which the balance of advantage is constantly shifting.

Although these models undoubtedly draw attention to important aspects of

decision-making, they also have their drawbacks. In the first place, the
organizational process model allows little scope for political leadership to be
imposed from above. It would be foolish, for example, to suggest that all
decisions are shaped by organizational pressures and perceptions, for this would
be to ignore the personal role played by F. D. Roosevelt in initiating the New
Deal, nor Hitler’s influence on Germany’s decision to invade Poland. Second; it
is simplistic to suggest, as the bureaucratic politics model does, that political
actors simply hold views that are based on their own position and on the
interests of the organizations in which they work. Although the aphorism
‘where you stand depends on where you sit’ may often be applicable, personal
sympathies and individual goals cannot be altogether discounted. Finally, to
explain decisions entirely in terms of black-box considerations is to fail to give
any weight to the external pressures that emanate from the broader economic,
political and ideological context.

Belief system models

Models of decision making that place an emphasize on the role of beliefs and
ideologies highlight the degree to which behaviour structured by perception.
When people see and understand to an extent, what their concepts and values all
them, or encourage them, to see and understand. This tendency is particularly
entrenched because, in most cases, it is largely unconscious. Although decision
makers may believe that they are being rational, rigorous and strictly impartial,
that social and political values may act as a powerful filter, defining for them
what is thinkable, what is possible, and what is desirable. Certain information
and particular options are therefore not appreciated or even considered, while
other pieces of information and other courses of action feature prominently in
the calculus of decision-making. Indeed, Boulding (1956) underlined the vital
importance of process by pointing out that, without a mechanism to filter
information, decision makers would simply be overwhelmed by the sheer
volume of data confronting them.

However, there are different views about the origin and nature of this filter
process. Jervis (1968), for instance, drew attention to evidence of consistence
perception on the part of decision –makers. In international affairs, this
stemmed largely from ethnocentrism. The inclination of Anthony Eden and UK
government to view General Nasser as a second Hitler during the 1956 crisis,
and the tendency of the USA in 1959 to regard Fidel Castro a Marxist
revolutionary, may be examples of this phenomenon. Irving (1972), On the
other hand, suggested that many decisions in the field of international relations
could be explained in terms of what he called ‘groupthink’. This is the
phenomenon in which psychological and professional pressures conspire to
encourage a group of decision-makers to adopt a unified and coherent position,
with contrary or inconvenient views being squeezed out of consideration.

An attempt to combine different approaches to decision-making that account of

the impact of belief systems has been made by Paul Sabatier which his principal
concern was to explain how policy changes occur. In particular he drew
attention to the role of ‘policy subsystems’: that is, collections of people in
some way contribute to influencing policy in a particular area. A policy may
include not only interlocking groups of politicians, civil servants and interest
groups, but also researchers, academics and journalists concerned with which
Sabatier maintained that, within these subsystems, ‘advocacy coalitions’ emerge
comprise collections of individuals who share broadly similar beliefs and
values. These beliefs nevertheless operate on three different levels; deep core
beliefs (fundamental moral or philosophical principles), near-core beliefs
(policy preferences) and secondary beliefs (views about implementation or
application).

The importance of such beliefs is that they provide what-Sabatier called the glue
politics, binding people together on the basis of shared values and preferences.
However, while core beliefs are highly resistant to change, a greater measure of
disagreement and flexibility is usually found at the near-core and secondary
levels. Using framework, Sabatier proposed that policy change could be
understood in large terms of the shifting balance of forces within a policy
subsystem, in particular through the dominance of one advocacy coalition over
others. This process may nevertheless be seen to be rational insofar as debate
within a belief system, and rivalry between belief systems, promotes ‘policy-
orientated learning.
In the hands of Marxists and feminists, however, such ideas can be used to draw
a very different conclusions (Hann, 1995). Marxists have argued that the core
beliefs within any policy subsystem, or indeed amongst policymakers and
opinion formers at large, are structured by ruling-class ideology and so favour
the interests of dominant economic interests. Feminists,-for their part, may
argue that a preponderance of men amongst policy-makers ensures that the
‘glue’ of politics is provided by patriarchal ideas and values. This results in
policy biases that help to sustain a system of male power.

4.0Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to establish the concepts of decision making
and theories of decision making.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to discuss the various definitions of decision
making. In addition, the following theories of decision making were extensively
perused; rational comprehensive, incremental, mixed scanning, bureaucratic
organization and belief system.
 Unit 5: Personnel Administration

1.0Introduction
Managing human resources effectively has become vital to organization of the
twenty-first century. The heightened level of global competitiveness has alerted
all organizations to the fact that all their resources must be utilized well than
ever before and that much more could be gained from a better handling of the
personnel. Academics and human resources or personnel management
professionals have identified several human resources activities that are critical
for organizational survival. Survival of an organisation is enhanced by the
ability to effectively manage human resources in order to attract, motivate and
retain employees. Human resources activities need to be performed effectively,
but also the human resources or personnel department of any organization need
to play several roles and have a broader and deeper range of competencies in
order to bring this about. Thus, Personnel management is the use of several
activities to ensure that human resources are managed effectively for the benefit
of the individual, society and the organization. It is based on this premise that
this unit on personnel management treated the topic under the following
headings;

Objectives

At the end of this unit, students should be able to;

1. Understand the meaning of personnel management,
2. Explain recruitment, selection and placement of personnel,
3. Discuss compensation of personnel in terms of wages and salary,
4. Explain conditions of promotion, transfer, demotion and retirement
of personnel, and
3. Understand the development of manpower.

Main Contents
Meaning of Personnel Administration
The term personnel administration encompasses those managerial actions
concerned with the acquisition and utilization of labour services by any
organization. Personnel management, like the management of any other
resources, forms an element of all managerial activity because, by definition, all
managers achieve their objectives by organizing, directing and controlling the
activities of other people usually those of their subordinates in a hierarchy of
roles. All managers must ensure therefore that the personnel needed are both
procured from the labour market and used effectively in the services of the
organizations.
Acquisition and utilization of labour may be broken down into the particular
tasks of recruiting, selecting, deploying, using, assessing, developing and
rewarding the labour services necessary to achieving the goals of the
organization and its management.

Recruitment, Selection and Placement of Personnel

Recruitment
Recruitment can be defined as the first part of the process of filling a vacancy; it
includes the examination of the vacancy, the consideration of sources of suitable
candidates, making contact with those candidates and attracting applications
from them. Another useful definition of recruitment is: searching for and
obtaining potential job candidates in sufficient numbers and quanlity so that the
organization can select the most appropriate ones to fill its job needs. Selection
on the other hand is the - assessing the candidates by various means, and
making a choice followed by an offer of employment.

Vacancy occurred because of some new or increased activity, then, in all

probability, there is the need for new employees to fill such vacancies. The
majority of vacancies, however, occur as replacements for people who have left
the organisation or as the final event in a chain of transfers and promotions
following reorganization. In these cases, consideration may be given to the
following points;

a. It may be possible to fill the vacancy from within the company,

b. It may be filled by a different kind of employee, e.g. a school-leaver or a
part-time, and
c. The job and personnel specifications may need to be revised.

The advantages of filling the vacancies internally rather than externally are:

1. Better motivation of employees, because their capabilities are considered

and opportunities offered for promotion;
2. Better utilization of employees, because the company can often make
better use of their abilities in a different job;
3. It is more reliable than external recruitment, because present employee is
known to be more thorough than an external candidate;
4. Present employee is more likely to stay with the company than an
external candidate; and
5. Internal recruitment is quicker and cheaper than external.

Many vacancies are filled from external sources; even when an internal
candidate is transferred or promoted the final result is usually a vacancy else-
where in the organization which has to be filled from outside. External
recruitment can be time- consuming, expensive and uncertain, though it is
possible to reduce these disadvantages to some extent by fore thought and
planning. External sources may be divided into two classes; those which are
comparatively inexpensive but offer a limited choice (i.e. a-f below) and those
which are comparatively expensive but give the employer access to a wider
range of candidates (i.e. g and h below).

i. Recommendations by present employees: This is sometimes encouraged

by rewards to employees who introduce successful candidates. It gives a
limited field of choice, but it costs very little and as a rule, the candidates
are of good quality.
ii. Unsolicited applications are sometimes received from candidates who
either call personally at the place of work or write letter of enquiry. This
is another inexpensive source, which provides a limited choice, but the
candidates are of uncertain quality.
iii. Direct links with educational establishments. Many employers maintain
connections with universities, colleges and schools. Candidates are
usually available from these sources only at one time of the year. This
difficulty can often be overcome if companies begin their internal training
courses to fill vacancies with temporary staff until school-leavers are
available.
iv. Trade unions: Some companies recruit certain kinds of employees
through the appropriate trade unions. The choice is limited, but there is
some certainty that the candidates have the skill or knowledge the job
requires.
v. Government agencies: The youth employment service and the various
services of the Department of Employment provide means of recruitment,
which is either free of charge or cost very little. The choice offered by
these services is to seek jobs by other methods and do not register with
the appropriate government agency.
vi. Professional bodies: Many professional bodies have an employment
services with which their members can register, supplying details of their
experience and kind of job they are looking for. An employer who uses
this service can be sure that all the candidates submitted to him are
professionally qualified, and if the vacancy he wishes to fill requires a
certain qualification the limited choice offered is not a disadvantage.
vii.Private agencies: These are organizations that are run as commercial
enterprises for supplying employers with candidates for jobs.
viii.Advertising: The most popular method of recruitment is to advertise
the vacancy in the mass media and invite candidates to apply to the
company.
Selection
The application form: Whatever method of recruitment is used, the candidate
should be asked to fill up an application form and to ensure that no important
details are omitted. According to Dale (1978: 259) the layout of application
forms varies, but most of them contain the following headings, usually in this
order:

1. Job applied for;

2. Name, Address, Telephone number, e-mail;
3. Date and place of birth, Marital status, Nationality;
4. Education;
5. Training and Qualifications;
6. Medical history (e.g. any serious illness, whether disabled);
7. Employment history (names of previous employees, description of jobs
held, dates of employment, reasons for leaving);
8. Any other information the candidate wishes to provide;
9. A signature under the words "this information is correct to the best of my
knowledge";
10.Date.

The application form is not the only basis of selection, but it is the fundamental
document in an employee's personnel record and has legal importance in the
contract of employment.

Selection methods: Choosing the right person for the job is critical to the
organization's success and a poor or inappropriate choice cannot only be costly
to the organization, but demoralizing to the employee (who finds him/himself in
the wrong job) and not motivating to the rest of the work force.

The manager's next step is to compare the application form with the personnel
specification, looking for attributes, which show the candidates to be apparently
suitable for the job and shortcomings, which may either rule out the candidate
from consideration or necessitate special training if he were engaged. The
manager will have decided what type of interview should be given to
individuals, successive or panel and what test should be used e.g. an intelligent
test, or aptitude test.

Selection Techniques: These can be summarized as short-listing, test and

exercise, presentations, the selection, interview, recording the outcomes, making
a decision and securing the appointment.

Offer of the job: Assuming that a suitable candidate has emerged from the
selection process, she/he would then receive an offer. It is usual for her/him to
 be made an oral offer, and if he accepts it he is given a written offer. The initial
offer of a job needs special care, particularly as regards the following points:

i. The wage or salary offered must not only be appropriate to the job and
attractive to the candidate but consistent with the earning of present
employees;
ii. The job must be named and any special conditions stated;
iii. The candidate must know the essential conditions of employment;
iv. Any provision must be clearly stated; and
v. The next stage must be clearly defined: if the candidate asks for time for
consideration, it must be agreed when he will get in touch.

References: This is an important addition to the information available to the

employing organization in deciding whether or not to confirm an offer of
appointment. The verbal offer of appointment following interview is normally
made subject to satisfactory references, health checks and sometimes police
checks and careful account should be taken of these references in determining
whether or not to offer a post.

Induction: The process of receiving the employee when he begins work,

introducing him to the organisation and his colleagues, and informing him of
the activities, customs and traditions of the organisation is called Induction. It
may be regarded as the beginning of training or the final stage of the selection
process. It has also been shown to have a close relationship with labour turn
over.

Compensation: Wages and Salary

Wages is defined as the need and in return of a piece of work done immediately.
This is specifically for "blue collar labour" or as it is popularly called casual
labour. Skillful "white collar labour" gets the reward or salary. Salary is defined
as the reward paid to employees after weeks or a month in return for the skillful
or un-routine labour. Wages/salaries are structured according to its various
elements, and the extent that different organizations can cope. Collective
bargaining applies to those arrangements in which wages/salaries and
conditions of employment are settled by bargaining in form of an agreement
made between employees or association of employers and workers organization.
A compensation package is comprised of basic salary and one or more of the
following allowances/premiums.

1) Cost of living differential: This takes into consideration the differences

in cost in various parts of the world so that expatriates can enjoy the
same, if not better standard of leaving they were accustomed to at home.
 2) Foreign Service premium: Beside cost of living differential,
multinationals pay a Foreign Service premium to induce an employee to a
foreign assignment.
3) Relocation allowances: Some multinationals pay a lump sum outright to
offset nonrecurring incidental cost necessitated by relocation.
4) Hardship and danger premium: Danger pay applies to specific
emergency situations, such as war, or political unrest, and it is
discontinued once the emergency situation ceases. Hardship premium on
the hand represents an on going allowance for assignment to countries
with hardship living conditions, such as climate, or inadequate amenities.
Besides monetary incentives many multinationals adopt other measures to
make assignments to hardship location more bearable, such as shorter
durations of overseas assignment and more frequent relation to seaside
resort or home leave.
Salary Structue
Salary is a fixed periodical payment to a manual employee. It is usually
expressed in annual terms, implying a relatively permanent employment
relationship, though normally paid at monthly intervals. In many ways it
resembles a retaining fee. Salaried workers are usually termed staff. The total
remuneration of employees often consists of many different payment elements.
These elements include:
1. Basic rate;
2. Incentive bonuses;
3. "Dirty money";
4. Shift allowance;
5. Merit allowance, etc.

These elements can be categorized and seen as relating either to the job content
itself, the individual, special circumstances surrounding the job or the
organization’s policy aimed at retaining employees. Wages/salaries have some
components namely:
1. Job rate which relates to the importance of the job;
2. Payments associated with encouraging individuals or group by rewarding
them according to their performance;
3. Special or personal allowances associated with such factors as scarcity of
particular skills or categories of employees or long services; and
4. Fringe benefits such as holiday with pay, pensions, life insurance, car and
so on.

Surely, salary structures differ to the extent in which they incorporate these
components. Generally the job rate is used as a basis for calculating
performance and other bonuses and for determining the job holidays entitlement
to fringe benefits.
Wages/salaries are paid to employees on the following purposes:

a. As reward for service rendered by labours;

b. As motivation to employees;
c. As determinants of the employees purchasing power;
d. As a social status determinant rather than a mere remuneration package.

Wages/salaries are determined based on several factors like:

i. The ability to pay;

ii. Government policy; and
iii. Collective bargaining agreements.

Characteristics of Salaries
A salary differs from a wage in many respects, reflecting the different attitudes
traditionally held by an employer towards his non-manual employees compared
with his manual employees:

a) A salary is usually all-inclusive; there are no additional payments of

danger money or productivity bonus, for example;
b) A salary is progressive, in most cases increasing annually, whereas a
wage earner reaches the standard rate for the job early in adult life and
does not receive annual increment;
c) A salary is often regarded as personal to the individual, but a wage is sum
paid to all workers at a particular job;
d) A salary is often confidential but there is no secret about a wage; and
e) In the private sector of employment, salaries, unlike wages, are seldom
the subject of trade union negotiations.

Salary Administration
There are three typical ways in which an organization can administer its
salaries:
a. Ad hoc, in which there is no attempt at any kind of job evaluation to
assess a fair level of salary for a job. Increases in salary are given
erratically, often at the demand of the employee rather than at the
initiative of the company. In a small company this method is workable.
But in a large company it can produce an illogical and unfair salary
structure, which will cause discontent and jealousy. For obvious reasons
salaries paid by this system are intended to be confidential.
 b. Merit review, usually found in medium and large companies in the
private sector. After job evaluation, a salary range is attached to every
staff job. Employees are appraised and given merit increases each year,
which will move their salaries at varying speeds through the range. In this
way individual effort and merit are rewarded. It is customary for salaries
under this system to be kept confidential: in most cases the employees do
not know the maximum salary it is possible to earn in their job.
c. Incremental scale found above all in the public sector e.g. the civil
service, local government and nationalized companies though its use
appears to be increasing in private sector. All stall jobs are evaluated and
graded, the salary range appearing as, most schemes permit a manager to
award a double increment for exceptional merit or withhold an increment
for unsatisfactory work or conduct, but as a rule the standard increment is
given automatically. In this system long service and loyalty are
encouraged by regular higher grade. It is customary for salaries in the
incremental system to be non-confidential.

Wage Structure
A wage is the payment made to manual workers. It is nearly always expressed
as a rate per hour. The foundation of a manual worker's earnings is his basic
time wage, which is often fixed by job evaluation and is subject in most
industries to minimum rates agreed in national collective bargaining or laid
down by wages councils. He is paid the hourly rate for every hour he attends
work, though he is frequently fixed for lateness by quartering e.g. for being five
minutes late, he will lose a quarter of an hour’s pay. In addition to the basic rate
he will often receive other payments, the most common examples of which are:

i. Overtime: Pay for any work done beyond normal hours. It is usually paid
at premium rates, i.e. at time and a quarter time and a half, double time,
etc, the rate varying according to the time or the day on which the
overtime is worked.
ii. Shift: Pay for employees who work unusual or charging hours to
compensate them for inconveniences and hardship. The amount of shift
pay varies in different industries, but seems to range from about ten to
twenty percent of the basic rate.
iii. Special additions: E.g. danger money, dirty money or wet money that
are paid to the employees during abnormal working conditions. Since the
circumstances that justify these additions are hard to define, many
employers find it preferable to allocate it as contingencies in job
evaluation rather than give special extra payments that is often difficult to
take away again.
iv. Merit or length of service: Additions to employees either on the results
of appraisal or on completion of a certain period of service. Merit
 payments are not very popular with wage earners, who feel they are
influenced by prejudice and subjective judgments. Length of service
payments has an approximate relationship with merit, encourage
employees to stay with the company, and can be precisely defined.
v. Cost of living allowances: Are given quite commonly to employees who
work in the Lagos, Abuja or Port Harcourt areas, but with that exception
are now consolidated into the basic wage.
vi. Policy allowances: They cover miscellaneous extra payments, like the
addition to the job-evaluated rate for temporarily scarce employee.
vii. Payment by results bonus: This is an extra payment based on the
output of the worker or of the group to which he belongs.

In private industry, about seventy percent of a manual worker's total earnings

are on the average accounted for by his basic wage and about thirty percent by a
selection from the additional payments. Total earnings have increased at a faster
rate than basic wages because the additional payments have become
proportionately larger. It should be noted that they are decided entirely within
the company, often at a fairly low level of management, and are not easily
influenced by government's action.

Staff Training and Development

According to Johnson (1972), the knowledge required of a senior executive of
an organization includes:
1. A thorough knowledge of his disciplines and some understanding of
related discipline;
2. A thorough understanding of the logical and analytical techniques;
3. Knowledge or understanding of the community which he is serving in
terms of what it is, what it wants etc; and
4. Understanding of the art and science of management.

The concept of training, education and staff development

Some authors use these three terms interchangeably. Here, we shall regard them
as a continuum. Education may be defined as a generalizing process intended to
prepare an individual to deal with unexpected and unpredicted situations in life.
Training is concerned with a deliberate and systematic attempt to develop and
or improve the capability profile in a pattern of skill, knowledge and attitude -
required by an individual to accomplish a given task.

On the other hand, staff development relates to the systematic development of

the individual career so that his interests, abilities, education, formal and
informal training and work responsibilities are related to one another, with the
intention of realizing his full potentials. Hence development is to cause to grow
larger, fuller or more mature or advance to a higher status.
 Organisation Training Needs
Training should not be undertaken for its own sake. It must be seen to relate to
the objectives of the particular organization. This is necessary because
organizations differ in culture and in order to work out a training programme,
the Training Needs
Analysis of each organization will have to be assessed or ascertained.

The following questions are relevant at this juncture

(a) Present Position:
1. What manpower do we have?
2. What training has this manpower had?
3. What are the deficiencies viz what skills are lacking?

(b) Based on Organization Objectives:

1. Who needs to be trained?
2. What categories of employees need specific training programme -
machine operator, Mechanics, supervisors or managers?
3. How many of each category needs to be trained?
4. How much time/cost is available for the training?

Types of Training
Training may be specialized or general, internal or external, adhoc or regular
etc. The various types of training which can be used in an organization in
various combinations for maximum impact and effectiveness include:
a. Induction training - general or specialized;
b. Career development;
c. On the job training;
d. Departmental training;
e. Organization development (0D);
f. Occupational training;
g. Organizational training e.g. ASCON, CMD, ARMTI, etc;
h. Learning new techniques and concepts;
i. Remedial training;
j. Aiding displaced employees;
k. Training for advancement;
l. Apprenticeship e.g. construction workers, printers, etc.; and
m. Training the disadvantaged etc.

Techniques of managing Manpower Development

The following are some of the important on-the-job and off the job techniques
of management development:
Coaching - Trainee is placed under a particular supervisor who act as an
instructor and teaches the job knowledge, skills and attitude;
Counseling - involves a discussion between the boss and his subordinates on
areas concerned with the man's hopes, fears, emotions and aspirations.
Job rotation - transferring of executives to job and from department to
department in a systematic manner.

Off-the-job Techniques
These will include among others:
i. The case study;
ii. Incident study;
iii. Role-playing;
iv. Business games;
v. Sensitivity training;
vi. Simulation; and
vii.Conferences and lectures.

Case Study
Cases are prepared on the basis of actual business situations that happened in
various organizations. Here, the situation is generally described and the trainees
have distinguish the significant facts from the insignificant once, analyze the
facts, identify different alternative solutions, select and suggest the best
solution.

Role Playing
A problem situation is simulated by asking the participants to assume the role of
a particular person in the situation. The particular interacts with others assuming
different role. Roles' playing gives the participants various experiences, which
are of many uses to understand people better. This method teaches human
relation skills through actual practice.

Business Game
Under this method, the trainees are divided into groups or teams. Each has to
discuss and arrive at decisions concerning such subjects as producing, pricing,
research expenditure, advertising etc. assuming itself to be the management of a
stimulated firm. The other teams assume themselves as competitors and react to
the discussions. Any immediate feedback helps to know the relative
performance of each team. The team's co-operative decision promotes greater
interactions among participants and gives them the experience in the co-
operative group process.
Sensitivity Training (T - Groups)
This is an intervention technique that attempts to give the person more inside
into his or her own behavior as how that behaviour affects others. The main
objective of this is the development of awareness of sensitivity, to behavioural
patterns of oneself and others. Comphell and Dunnete (1968) have listed the
objectives below. This development results in the (i) increased openness with
others, (ii) greater concern for others; (iii) increased tolerance for individual
differences (iv) less prejudice (v) understanding of group progress (vi) enhanced
listening skills and (vii) increased trust and support. Delbeeq (1972:411) has
described the process by which these objectives are attained as follows;

1. There is an initial lack of directive leadership and formal agenda and

participants fill the behavioural vacuum by engaging in traditional
behaviours such as status cue sending, power play etc.,
2. Feedback, based on member behaviour within the anxiety - laden
environment is prioritized to confirm individual impressions of role
effectiveness and personality impact.
3. Interpersonal relationship begins to develop, and members serve as
resources to one another, previously untied personal and interpersonal
behaviours, particularly collaborative behaviours, are attempted.
4. Relevance of the T-Group experience to back home situations is
explained and problems are introduced to maximize transferability of
what has been learned beyond the training laboratory.

Under this technique, the situation is duplicated in such a way that it carries a
close resemblance to the actual job situation. The trainee experiences a feeling
that he is actually encountering all these conditions. Then, he is asked to assume
a particular role in the circumstances and solve the problems by making
management decision and later, he is given a feedback of his performance.

Selection of Techniques
The success of any management development programme largely depends on
the selection of the technique. The objectives of the programmes should always
form the basis in the selection of techniques. However, it should also be
remembered that no single technique can prove to be sufficient, but sometimes a
combination of the techniques can make any management development
programme effective. This is because all managers at all levels require all kinds
of skills but in varied proportions.

Promotion, Transfer, Demotion and Retirement

Promotion
A promotion is a move of an employee to a job within the organization, which
has greater importance and usually, higher pays. Frequently the job has higher
status and carries improved fringe benefits and more privileges. Its purpose is to
improve both the utilization and motivation of employee. There are two main
ways in which an organisation may promote its employees:
a. By management decision, in which an employee is selected for promotion
on the basis of information already known to the management. This
method is quick and expensive and obviously very suitable for a small
company or for jobs for which the field of possible candidates is small
and well known. In large organizations, it may cause discontent because
the decision is arrived at in secret, possible candidates not having the
opportunity to state their qualifications for the post. In all cases, this
method depends for its success on complete and up-to date employee
records, which can be used to identify all possible candidates for any job.
b. By internal advertisement, employees are told by notices or circulars that
a post is vacant and they are then invited to apply. Some or all of the
candidates are interviewed and finally selected. It is a comparatively
expensive and time-consuming method, but is particularly suitable to a
large organization in which management cannot be expected to have
personal knowledge of possible candidates. It does not rely on accurate
employee records, and, being open rather than secret, appears fairer to the
candidates than the management decision methods. In the public sector
promotions are made almost entirely through internal advertisements.

Normally, employees derive satisfaction from an organisation policy of

promotion from within but badly handled promotions can cause dissatisfaction.
The important points to note are:
i. The criteria for promotion must be fair - usually a combination of ability,
relevant experience and length of service;
ii. The method must be fair;
iii. Selection for promotion must be based on appraisals by present and pass
managers;
iv. The wage or salary offered to the promoted employee must be what the
job deserves rather than what the management thinks he will accept; and
v. Unsuccessful candidates must be sympathetically treated.

Transfer:
A transfer is a move to a job within the organization, which has approximately
equal important status and pay. To manage human resources in a constructive
way it is sometimes necessary to transfer employees to other jobs, sometimes
because of changed work requirements and sometimes because an employee is
unhappy or dissatisfied in the present job. In some organisations it is the custom
for the least satisfactory employees to be transferred from one department to
another with the result that a transfer is regarded as discreditable, particularly if
it occurs at short notice and without explanation. An unhappy employee may
therefore prefer to leave the organisation rather than seek a transfer. In other
organisations transfers are used as a means of developing promising employees
by giving them experience in several departments. A few companies internally
advertise all vacancies, and consider applicants for whom the new job would be
a transfer rather than a promotion.

Transfers can increase job satisfaction and improve utilization under following
circumstances:

1. A transfer is regarded as are-selection;

2. The need for a transfer is explained;
3. Unsatisfactory employees are not dealt with by transferring them to other
department;
4. Requests by employees for transfers are fully investigated; and
5. Employee transferred to another district is given financial assistance from
the company to overcome removal costs, legal fees, re-furnishing etc.

Demotion
A demotion is a move to a job within the company, which is lower in
importance. It is usually, though not always, accompanied by a reduction in pay.
An employee may be demoted for these reasons:

a. Her/his job may disappear or become less important through company

reorganization.
b. He may no longer be thought capable of carrying out his present
responsibilities efficiently.

Unless the employees asked for it, demotion will probably have adverse effects
as follows:

i. There will be less satisfaction of esteem and self-actualization needs. The

employee may show negative reactions to frustration.
ii. He may become a center of discontents in the company.
iii. Other employees may lose confidence in the company.

Retirement
Social security retirement pensions are at present paid at sixty years for men and
women in Nigeria, providing retirement from work takes place. The retirement
policies of employers are usually based on this age or length of service. An
employer's pension scheme (if one exists) is designed to conform with retire age
when the employee is expected to retire. There are two schools of thought about
 the age of retirement; one maintains that the age should be minimal while
suitable and fit employees could be allowed to work on after this age. The
others believe in a fixed retirement age.
The advantages of flexible retirement policy are:

1. Many employees are fit and active well beyond the official retirement
age. By working on, they benefit financially and the employer profits
from their knowledge and experience; and
2. The financial burden on the pension scheme may be received.

The disadvantages of this policy are:

a. Eventually the employer must decide that an employee is no longer fit to

work; the decision may not be accepted by the employee, who may make
accusations of favouritism if others that are older than him are still
working;
b. Promotion may be held up if a senior employee does not retire, causing
promising employees to leave the company;
c. The employee, not knowing when he will be asked to leave, cannot easily
plan for retirement; and
d. The organization cannot plan its manpower when retirement ages are
uncertain.

Moreover, a company, which adopts a fixed retirement age policy, insists on all
its employees retiring from their present jobs at a certain age, although
sometimes they are offered re-employment in a junior capacity for a limited
period.
The advantages of this policy are:

i. Employees can plan for retirement more easily;

ii. No invidual judgments about efficiency have to be made;
iii. The company can plan its manpower more precisely; and
iv. Promotion is not held up.

Manpower Planning
According to Nwachukwu (1988, p.100), the process by which management
attempts to provide for its human resources to accomplish planning as an
attempt to forecast how many and what kind of employees will be required in
the future, and to what extent this demand is likely to be met. Also, Boway
(1974) defines it as an activity of management which is aimed at coordinating
the requirement for, and availability of different types of employees. This
entails ensuring that the organization has enough of the right kind of person. It
may also involve adjusting the requirement to the available supply. Cole (1999)
defines manpower planning as a rational approach to the recruitment, retention,
utilization, improvement and disposition of an organization’s human resources.
It is concerned with quality as it is with quantity.

In whichever way it is defined, the fact remains that manpower planning is a

crucial task that must be faced by human resource managers in all organizations.
One of the major problems confronting any organization is the most effective
way of matching people with jobs. The perennial question that experts often ask
is whether we should design the job to suit the individual or get the individual to
fit into a job position.

Manpower planning is both dynamic and complex. Manpower planning is

dynamic and it requires frequent readjustments because; goals of the
organization and its environment are dynamic and unstable. Since manpower
planning is done to fit me to jobs or vice versa, for the achievement of the
organization’s objectives, it is necessary to adjust manpower planning from
time to time to the needs of the organization. Sometimes, manpower planning
can even call for a review of organizational objectives. According to Graham
(1989, p.149), a manpower planning must include feedback because if the plan
cannot be fulfilled, the objectives of the company may have to be modified so
that they are feasible in manpower terms.

Types of manpower planning

Generally, manpower is categorized into different types primarily on the basis
of time spent on planning. Manpower planning can therefore be classified into
short-term and long-term.

Short-term manpower planning is much more common than the long-term. It

usually covers a period up to one year ahead. According to Graham (1989,
p.152), many organizations do not have the quality of management to forecast
long-term objectives or they feel that the nature of their business makes it
possible to look ahead for more than one year. Invariably, short-term manpower
planning is easier to make than long-term. A long-term manpower plan is
normally regarded as one which attempts to forecast for about five years ahead.
Human resources managers are much more concerned with long term
manpower planning not only because it is relevant and quite difficult to make,
but also because it is complex.

The general process identified above applies to manpower planning in virtually

all organizations. However, certain steps are important and must be taken by
resources managers in the process of manpower planning.
Steps in manpower planning
Specifically, manpower planning can be classified into four (4) steps namely:

Assessment of needs
At this step, relevant questions such as what are the predicted employment
needs of the organization, how many and what type of employees will be
required in the organization in the future. The answers to these questions will
enable the organization to work out the need for manpower. One of the methods
of arriving at correct prediction is through job analysis. The job analysis method
helps the organization to clearly define staffing needs. Areas covered in the
analysis include:
a. Work activities – what needs to be done;
b. What tools and technology – what machines, tools and technology people
will use;
c. Knowledge requirement – what people must do to perform the job;
d. Personnel requirement – what skills and experience people must posses to
perform well;
e. Job context i.e. the work schedules, physical, conditions, social
environment of the job; and
f. Performance standard – expected results.

Evaluation of manpower resources

To ascertain the current position, these questions are relevant; what skill,
interest and experience do current employers have? What jobs are being done?
How many employees are doing particular jobs? Are current employees the
most likely candidates to meet the future needs and should therefore be the first
one to be considered for new positions? The answer to these questions will go a
long way in helping to evaluate the quality and potentials of current manpower
available to a company.

Analysis of future availability

This step determines the job that employees are to hold in future. But
promotion, transfers and termination affect this. Here, some moves are easier to
predict than others. Changes such as retirement and some termination are easily
predictable, this is not so with other movements. This notwithstanding, analysis
of future availability of manpower is an important aspect of the planning
process. Prediction of who is to be promoted, transferred or fixed allows
managers to predict what jobs will be vacant.

A long-term manpower plan according to Graham (1989, p.149) is complex

because it involves so many independent variables – invention, population,
changes, resistance to change, consumer demands, government intervention,
foreign competition and above all, domestic competition.
The process and steps in manpower planning
Like other types of planning, manpower planning is made from organizational
objectives. When an organization’s objectives are clearly stated, including
which products to be produced, the methods to be used in production and the
possible markets for the products, the demand for labour can be derived. The
demand for labour is then related to supply to produce the manpower plan. The
manpower planning process can then be described as below:

Preparation of recruitment and development plans: After the job analysis,

recruitment process may start by the human resources manpower-planning
manager developing a job description i.e. a specific statement of tasks involved
in the job and condition under which the holder will work; also, job description
of the kind of person who will be suitable for the job – including skills,
education qualification and previous working knowledge or experience the job
demand.

Importance of Manpower Planning to Organisation

Manpower planning can assist management in decision-making in the following
areas:
i. Recruitment: The right number of staff is recruited at each level in the
organization hierarchy;
ii. Avoidance of redundancies: The staffing requirement can be better
balanced, ensuring that not more than required is recruited;
iii. Training: Which number and categories or staff requires training and in
what areas;
iv. Management development;
v. Estimates of labour cost;
vi. Productivity bargaining; and
vii. Accommodation requirements.

These and other importance of manpower planning to organization, make

manpower planning a vital task in human resources management.

Limitations in Manpower Planning

Despite the importance and crucial nature of manpower, human resources
management has some limitations (Graham 1989, p.153). In practice, manpower
planning can be difficult and often inaccurate. Graham identified the following
limitations in manpower planning:
i. Opposition or skeptics among members of management would be
convinced of the value of manpower planning if it is to be a success;
ii. Resistance to the changes expressed in the plans. The forecast of the
labour structure, with their effect on skills and status may be regarded as
a threat;
iii. Difficulty in forecasting economic and social changes accurately,
especially in an era of high employment.
iv. The plan may indicate recruitment and training programmes which
although desirable may be impossible to put into practice. A company’s
financial position may find long plans useless; and
v. The rapid growth of new technology.

4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to establish the concepts of personnel
management and related issues in terms of recruitment of personnel and their
development.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to discuss the various definitions of
personnel management. In addition, isues surrounding personnel recruitment,
selection and placement were discussed. Also personnel compensation in terms
of salary and wages were discussed. Added was discussion on promotion,
transfer, demotion and retirement of personnel. The unit concluded with
discussion on manpower development.
MODULE 3: SELECTED THEORIES OF ADMINISTRATION I

Unit 1: Scientific Management Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the scientific management theory and trace
its evolution, its philosophy and its relation with mechanization and automation
as well its impact in planned economies. Included are its negative sides and the
reaction of organized labour to it. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the scientific management theory
arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are
therefore, expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe scientific management theory,
2. Narrate its evolution,
3. Explain its philosophy,
4. Its relationship with mechanization,
5. Its impact on planned economy, and
6. Its negative sides.

Main Contents
Desciption of Scientific Management Theory
Scientific management is a theory of management that analyses and synthesizes
workflows, improving labor productivity. Scientific Management as a modern
management began in the late 19th century. Scientific management also is a
philosophy that sought to increase productivity and makes the work easier by
scientifically studying work method and establishing standards. It is about the
relationships between people and work, not a technique or an efficiency device.
Besides that, scientific management also is based on a concern not only for the
proper design of the job but also for the workers. Scientific Management also is
a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. It is a term
coined in 1910 to describe the system of industrial management and came to
mean any system of organization that clearly spelled out the functions of
individuals and groups.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915), was one of the early scientific

management theorists. He is an engineer known as “Father of Scientific
management”, focused on analyzing and redesigning jobs more efficiently. He
searched for the best way to maximize performance. As a result of his work, he
developed several scientific management principles. He believed that many
workers of his time performed below their true capacities. Taylor developed
these four principles of scientific management for managers to follow. It also
known as “Taylorism”:

1. Develop a science for each element of an individual’s work, which

will replace the old rule-of-thumb method.
2. Scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the worker.
3. Heartily cooperate with the workers so as to ensure that all work is
done in accordance with the principles of the science that has been
developed.
4. Divide work and responsibility almost equally between
management and workers. Management takes over all work for
which it is better fitted than the workers.

According to Taylor, Scientific management was a complete mental revolution

for both management and employees towards their respective duties and toward
each other. It was a new philosophy and attitude toward the use of human effort.
It emphasized maximum output with minimum effort through the elimination of
waste and inefficiency at the operative level. In Taylor view, the scientific study
of work also emphasized specialization and division of labor. Thus, the need for
an organizational framework became more and more apparent. The concepts of
line and staff were developed. In an effort to motivate workers, wage incentives
were developed in most scientific management programs.

Scientific management fundamentally consists of certain broad general

principles, a certain philosophy, which can be applied in many ways, and a
description of what any one man or men believe to be the best mechanism for
applying these general principles should in no way be confused with the
principles themselves. Under the management of “initiative and incentive”,
practically the whole problem is “up to the workman”, while under scientific
management fully one-half of the problem is “up to the management”.

Scientific management principles can improve productivity and had a

substantial impact on industry. It also increased the monotony of work. Hence,
scientific management is a thoughtful, organized, dual approach towards the job
of management against hit or miss or Rule of Thumb. Taylor believed that if
they were truly dependent on each other, cooperation would naturally follow.

In summary, Taylor and other scientific management pioneers believed

employees could be motivated by economic rewards, provided those rewards
were related to individual performance.
 Evolution of Scientific Theory

Taylor began the theory's development in the United States during the 1880s
and '90s within manufacturing industries, especially steel. Its peak of influence
came in the 1910s. Taylor died in 1915 and by the 1920s, scientific
management was still influential but had entered
into competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas.

Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was

obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial
engineering and management today. These include: analysis;
synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination
of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved
merely for its own sake or to protect the social status of particular workers with
particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production;
and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools,
processes, and documentation.
Taylor's own names for his approach initially included "shop management" and
"process management". However, "scientific management" came to national
attention in 1910 when crusading attorney Louis Brandeis (then not yet
Supreme Court justice) popularized the term. Brandeis had sought a consensus
term for the approach with the help of practitioners like Henry L.
Gantt and Frank B. Gilbreth. Brandeis then used the consensus of "scientific
management" when he argued before the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC) that a proposed increase in railroad rates was unnecessary despite an
increase in labor costs; he alleged scientific management would overcome
railroad inefficiencies. The ICC ruled against the rate increase, but also
dismissed as insufficiently substantiated that concept the railroads were
necessarily inefficient. Taylor recognized the nationally-known term "scientific
management" as another good name for the concept, and adopted it in the title
of his influential 1911 monograph.
The Midvale Steel Company, "one of America's great armor plate making
plants," was the birthplace of scientific management. In 1877, at age 22,
Frederick W. Taylor started as a clerk in Midvale, but advanced to foreman in
1880. As foreman, Taylor was "constantly impressed by the failure of his [team
members] to produce more than about one-third of what he deemed a good day's
work." Taylor determined to discover, by scientific methods, how long it should
take men to perform each given piece of work; and it was in the fall of 1882 that
he started to put the first features of scientific management into operation.
Horace Bookwalter Drury, in his 1918 work, Scientific management: A History
and Criticism, identified six other leaders in the movement, most of whom
learned of and extended scientific management from Taylor's efforts:
 1. Henry L. Gantt (1861–1919)
2. Carl G. Barth (1860–1939)
3. Horace K. Hathaway (1878–1944)
4. Morris L. Cooke (1872–1960)
5. Sanford E. Thompson (1867–1949)
6. Frank B. Gilbreth (1868–1924).

Gilbreth's independent work on "motion study" is on record as early as 1885.

After meeting Taylor in 1906 and being introduced to scientific management,
Gilbert devoted his efforts to introducing scientific management into factories.
Gilbreth and his wife Dr Lillian Moller Gilbreth (1878–1972) performed micro-
motion studies using stop-motion cameras as well as developing the profession
of industrial/organizational psychology.

Harrington Emerson (1853–1931) began determining what industrial plants'

products and costs were compared to what they ought to be in 1895. Emerson
did not meet Taylor until December 1900, and the two never worked together.
Emerson's testimony in late 1910 to the Interstate Commerce Commission
brought the movement to national attention and instigated serious opposition.
Emerson contended the railroads might save $1,000,000 a day by paying greater
attention to efficiency of operation. By January 1911, a leading railroad journal
began a series of articles denying they were inefficiently managed.
When steps were taken to introduce scientific management at the government-
owned Rock Island Arsenal in early 1911, it was opposed by Samuel Gompers,
founder and President of the American Federation of Labor (an alliance of craft
unions). When a subsequent attempt was made to introduce the bonus system
into the government's Watertown Arsenal foundry during the summer of 1911,
the entire force walked out for a few days. Congressional investigations
followed, resulting in a ban on the use of time studies and pay premiums in
Government service.
Taylor's death in 1915 at age 59 left the movement without its original leader. In
management literature today, the term "scientific management" mostly refers to
the work of Taylor and his disciples ("classical", implying "no longer current,
but still respected for its seminal value") in contrast to newer, improved
iterations of efficiency-seeking methods. Today, task-oriented optimization of
work tasks is nearly ubiquitous in industry.

Scientific Management’s Philosophy

Flourishing in the late 19th and early 20th century, scientific management built
on earlier pursuits of economic efficiency. While it was prefigured in the folk
wisdom of thrift, it favored empirical methods to determine efficient procedures
rather than perpetuating established traditions. Thus, it was followed by a
profusion of successors in applied science, including time and motion study,
the Efficiency Movement which was a broader cultural echo of scientific
management's impact on business managers specifically. Fordism, operations
management, operations research, industrial engineering, management
science, manufacturing engineering, logistics, business process
management, business process reengineering, lean manufacturing, and Six
Sigma. There is a fluid continuum linking scientific management with the later
fields, and the different approaches often display a high degree of compatibility.
Taylor rejected the notion, which was universal in his day and still held today,
that the trades, including manufacturing, were resistant to analysis and could
only be performed by craft production methods. In the course of his empirical
studies, Taylor examined various kinds of manual labor. For example, most
bulk materials handling was manual at the time; material handling equipment as
we know it today was mostly not developed yet. He looked at shoveling in the
unloading of railroad cars full of ore; lifting and carrying in the moving of iron
pigs at steel mills; the manual inspection of bearing balls; and others. He
discovered many concepts that were not widely accepted at the time. For
example, by observing workers, he decided that labor should include rest breaks
so that the worker has time to recover from fatigue, either physical (as in
shoveling or lifting) or mental (as in the ball inspection case). Workers were
allowed to take more rests during work, and productivity increased as a result.
Subsequent forms of scientific management were articulated by Taylor's
disciples, such as Henry Gantt; other engineers and managers, such as Benjamin
S. Graham; and other theorists, such as Max Weber. Taylor's work also
contrasts with other efforts, including those of Henri Fayol and those of Frank
Gilbreth, Sr. and Lillian Moller Gilbreth whose views originally shared much
with Taylor's but later diverged in response to Taylorism's inadequate handling
of human relations.

Scientific management requires a high level of managerial control over

employee work practices and entails a higher ratio of managerial workers to
laborers than previous management methods. Such detail-oriented management
may cause friction between workers and managers. Taylor observed that some
workers were more talented than others, and that even smart ones were often
unmotivated. He observed that most workers who are forced to perform
repetitive tasks tend to work at the slowest rate that goes unpunished. This slow
rate of work has been observed in many industries and many countries] and has
been called by various terms. Taylor used the term "soldiering", a term that
reflects the way conscripts may approach following orders, and observed that,
when paid the same amount, workers will tend to do the amount of work that
the slowest among them does. Taylor describes soldiering as "the greatest evil
with which the working-people ... are now afflicted."
This reflects the idea that workers have a vested interest in their own well-
being, and do not benefit from working above the defined rate of work when it
will not increase their remuneration. He therefore proposed that the work
practice that had been developed in most work environments was crafted,
intentionally or unintentionally, to be very inefficient in its execution. He
posited that time and motion studies combined with rational analysis and
synthesis could uncover one best method for performing any particular task, and
that prevailing methods were seldom equal to these best methods. Crucially,
Taylor himself prominently acknowledged that if each employee's
compensation was linked to their output, their productivity would go up. Thus,
his compensation plans usually included piece rates. In contrast, some later
adopters of time and motion studies ignored this aspect and tried to get large
productivity gains while passing little or no compensation gains to the
workforce, which contributed to resentment against the system.

Relationship of Scientific Management to Mechanization and

Automation
Scientific management evolved in an era when mechanization and automation
were still in their infancy. The ideas and methods of scientific management
extended the American system of manufacturing in the transformation
from craftwork with humans as the only possible agents to mechanization and
automation, although proponents of scientific management did not predict the
extensive removal of humans from the production process. Concerns over labor-
displacing technologies rose with increasing mechanization and automation.
By factoring processes into discrete, unambiguous units, scientific management
laid the groundwork for automation and offshoring, prefiguring industrial
process control and numerical control in the absence of any machines that could
carry it out. Taylor and his followers did not foresee this at the time; in their
world, it was humans that would execute the optimized processes. For example,
although in their era the instruction "open valve A whenever pressure gauge B
reads over value X" would be carried out by a human, the fact that it had been
reduced to an algorithmic component paved the way for a machine to be the
agent. However, one of the common threads between their world and ours is
that the agents of execution need not be "smart" to execute their tasks. In the
case of computers, they are not able (yet) to be "smart" (in that sense of the
word); in the case of human workers under scientific management, they were
often able but were not allowed. Once the time-and-motion men had completed
their studies of a particular task, the workers had very little opportunity for
further thinking, experimenting or suggestion-making. They were forced to
"play dumb" most of the time, which occasionally led to revolts.
The middle ground between the craft production of skilled workers and full
automation is occupied by systems of extensive mechanization and partial
automation operated by semiskilled and unskilled workers. Such systems
depend on algorithmic workflows and knowledge transfer, which require
substantial engineering to succeed. Although Taylor's intention for scientific
management was simply to optimize work methods, the process engineering
that he pioneered also tends to build the skill into the equipment and processes,
removing most need for skill in the workers. Such engineering has governed
most industrial engineering since then. It is also the essence of successful
offshoring. The common theme in all these cases is that businesses engineer
their way out of their need for large concentrations of skilled workers, and the
high-wage environments that sustain them. This creates competitive advantage
on the local level of individual firms, although the pressure it exerts
systemically on employment and employability is an externality.
Scientific theory and planned economies
Scientific management appealed to managers of planned
economies because central economic planning relies on the idea that the
expenses that go into economic production can be precisely predicted and can
be optimized by design. The opposite theoretical pole would be laissez-
faire thinking in which the invisible hand of free markets is the only possible
"designer". In reality most economies today are somewhere in between. Another
alternative for economic planning is workers' self-management.

Soviet Union
In the Soviet Union, Taylorism was advocated by Aleksei
Gastev and nauchnaia organizatsia truda (the movement for the scientific
organisation of labor). It found support in both Vladimir Lenin and Leon
Trotsky. Gastev continued to promote this system of labor management until his
arrest and execution in 1939. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union
enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts
in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new
industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally
planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet
thinking. As scientific management was believed to epitomize American
efficiency, Joseph Stalin even claimed that "the combination of the Russian
revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism."
Sorensen was one of the consultants who brought American know-how to the
USSR during this era, before the Cold War made such exchanges unthinkable.
As the Soviet Union developed and grew in power, both sides, the Soviets and
the Americans, chose to ignore or deny the contribution that American ideas
and expertise had made to the Soviets because they wished to portray
themselves as creators of their own destiny and not indebted to a rival, and the
Americans because they did not wish to acknowledge their part in creating a
powerful communist rival. Anti-communism had always enjoyed widespread
popularity in America, and anti-capitalism in Russia, but after World War II,
they precluded any admission by either side that technologies or ideas might be
either freely shared or clandestinely stolen.
East Germany
By the 1950s, scientific management had grown, but its goals and practices
remained attractive and were also being adopted by the German Democratic
Republic as it sought to increase efficiency in its industrial sectors. In the
accompanying photograph from the German Federal Archives, workers discuss
standards specifying how each task should be done and how long it should take.
The workers are engaged in a state-planned instance of process improvement,
but they are pursuing the same goals that were contemporaneously pursued
in capitalist societies, as in the Toyota Production System.

The Legacy of Scientific Management

Scientific management was one of the first attempts to systematically treat
management and process improvement as a scientific problem. It may have
been the first to do so in a "bottom-up" way and found a lineage of successors
that have many elements in common. With the advancement of statistical
methods, quality assurance and quality control began in the 1920s and 1930s.
During the 1940s and 1950s, the body of knowledge for doing scientific
management evolved into operations management, operations research, and
management cybernetics. In the 1980s total quality management became widely
popular, and in the 1990s "re-engineering" went from a simple word to a
mystique. Today's Six Sigma and lean manufacturing could be seen as new
kinds of scientific management, although their evolutionary distance from the
original is so great that the comparison might be misleading. In
particular, Shigeo Shingo, one of the originators of the Toyota Production
System, believed that this system and Japanese management culture in general
should be seen as a kind of scientific management.
Peter Drucker saw Frederick Taylor as the creator of knowledge management,
because the aim of scientific management was to produce knowledge about how
to improve work processes. Although the typical application of scientific
management was manufacturing, Taylor himself advocated scientific
management for all sorts of work, including the management of universities and
government. For example, Taylor believed scientific management could be
extended to "the work of our salesmen". Shortly after his death, his acolyte
Harlow S. Person began to lecture corporate audiences on the possibility of
using Taylorism for "sales engineering". Person was talking about what is now
called sales process engineering—engineering the processes
that salespeople use—not about what we call sales engineering today. This was
a watershed insight in the history of corporate marketing.
Google's methods of increasing productivity and output can be seen to be
influenced by Taylorism as well. The Silicon Valley Company is a forerunner in
applying behavioral science to increase knowledge worker productivity. In
classic scientific management as well as approaches like lean management or
business process reengineering leaders and experts develop and define standard.
Leading high-tech companies use the concept of nudge management to increase
productivity of employees. More and more business leaders start to make use of
this new scientific management.
Today's militaries employ all of the major goals and tactics of scientific
management, if not under that name. Of the key points, all but wage incentives
for increased output are used by modern military organizations. Wage
incentives rather appear in the form of skill bonuses for enlistments.
Scientific management has had an important influence in sports, where stop
watches and motion studies rule the day. Taylor himself enjoyed sports,
especially tennis and golf. He and a partner won a national championship in
doubles tennis. He invented improved tennis racquets and improved golf clubs,
although other players liked to tease him for his unorthodox designs, and they
did not catch on as replacements for the mainstream implements).
Modern human resources can be seen to have begun in the scientific
management era, most notably in the writings of Katherine M. H. Blackford,
who was also a proponent of eugenics. Practices descended from scientific
management are currently used in offices and in medicine (e.g. managed care)
as well.
In the 21st century the tendency to overcome Taylorism is very great. The trend
is moving away from assembly line work, since people are increasingly being
replaced by machines in production plants and sub-processes are automated, so
that human labor is not necessary in these cases. The desire for
automated workflow in companies is intended to reduce costs and support the
company at the operational level.
Furthermore, it can be observed that many companies try to make
the workplace as comfortable as possible for the employees. This is achieved by
light flooded rooms, Feng Shui methods in the workplace or even by creative
jobs. The efficiency and creativity of the employees is to be promoted by a
pleasant atmosphere at the workplace. Approaches of the Scientific
Management, in which attempts are also made to make the work environment
pleasant, are partly recognizable here.
In the works of Gouldner and Crozier, the recognition of the plurality
of industrial forms is being discussed. In the 21st century, we have a modern
corporate management, where managers are given the available positions
in companies and are given the right to take legal action.
The working world of the 21st century is mainly based on Total Quality
Management. This is derived from quality control. In contrast to Taylorism, by
which products are produced in the shortest possible time without any form of
quality control and delivered to the end customer, the focus in the 21st century
is on quality control at TQM. In order to avoid error rates, it is necessary to
hire specialists to check all the products which have been manufactured before
they are delivered to the end customer. The quality controls have improved over
time, and incorrect partial processes can be detected in time and removed from
the production process.
Taylorism approaches are largely prevalent in companies where machines can
not perform certain activities. Certain subprocesses are still to be carried out by
humans, such as the sorting out of damaged fruit in the final process before the
goods are packed by machines. It turns out that the quality control is ultimately
to be verified by the individual man. Certain activities remain similar to the
approach of Taylorism. There are no "zero error programs", employees have to
be trained and thus reduce error rates.
Through the invention of the management one managed positions, which are
equipped with disposition rights. The positions are occupied by paid employees
and form the basis for the current, modern corporate management. In order to be
able to perceive these positions, it was no longer necessary to bring in resources
such as capital, but instead qualifications were necessary. Written rights are also
passed on to employees, which means that the leaders of an organization tend to
fall into the background and merely have a passive position.
The structure and size of a company must be distinguished. Depending on
which dispositions are predominant, the size of the company, the sector, and the
number of employees in an organization, one can examine whether approaches
of Taylorism are prevalent. It is believed to be predominant in the automotive
industry. In spite of the fact that a lot of activities have been replaced by
machines during the production, it is ultimately the person who can check
the quality of a product.
Taylorism led to a performance increase in companies. All superfluous working
steps are avoided. The company benefits from the productivity of the workers
and this in turn from higher wages. Unused productivity resources were
effectively exploited by Taylorism.
Today's work environment in the 21st century benefits from the humanity of
working conditions. Corporate strategies are increasingly focused on the
flexibility of work. Flexible adaptation to demand should be possible. The
qualifications of the employees, the work content as well as the work processes
are determined by the competition situation on the market. The aim is to
promote self-discipline and the motivation of employees in order to achieve
their own tasks and at the same time to prevent monotonous work. Technical
progress has led to more humane working conditions since inhumane work
steps are done by the machines.
Taylorism's approach is called inhuman. The increased wage alone is not a
permanent incentive for the workers to carry out the same monotonous work.
Worker-friendly work structures are required. People no longer want to be
perceived merely as executive organ. The complete separation
from manual and headwork leads to a lack of pleasure in the execution of the
work steps.
In the 21st century the rising level of education leads to better trained workers,
but the competitive pressure also rises. The interplay of economic as well as the
pressure to innovate also led to uncertainty among employees. The national
diseases in the 21st century have become burn-out phenomena and depressions,
often in conjunction with the stressand the increased performance pressure in
the work.

The negative sides of Scientific Theory

Other thinkers soon offered more ideas on the roles that workers play in mature
industrial systems. These included ideas on improvement of the individual
worker with attention to the worker's needs, not just the needs of the
whole. James Hartness published The Human Factor in Works Management in
1912, while Frank Gilbreth and Lillian Moller Gilbreth offered their own
alternatives to Taylorism. The human relations school of management evolved
in the 1930s to complement rather than replace scientific management, with
Taylorism determining the organisation of the work process, and human
relations helping to adapt the workers to the new procedures. Today's
efficiency-seeking methods, such as lean manufacturing, include respect for
workers and fulfillment of their needs as integral parts of the theory. Workers
slogging their way through workdays in the business world do encounter flawed
implementations of these methods that make jobs unpleasant, but these
implementations generally lack managerial competence in matching theory to
execution. Clearly, a syncretism has occurred since Taylor's day, although its
implementation has been uneven, as lean management in capable hands has
produced good results for both managers and workers, but in incompetent hands
has damaged enterprises.
With the division of labor that became commonplace as Taylorism was
implemented in manufacturing, workers lost their sense of connection to the
production of goods. Workers began to feel disenfranchised with the
monotonous and unfulfilling work they were doing in factories. Before
scientific management, workers felt a sense of pride when completing their
good, which went away when workers only completed one part of production.
"The further 'progress' of industrial development... increased the anomic or
forced division of labor," the opposite of what Taylor thought would be the
effect. Partial adoption of Taylor's principles by management seeking to boost
efficiency, while ignoring principles such as fair pay and direct engagement by
managers, led to further tensions and the rise of unions to represent workers
needs.
Taylor had a largely negative view of unions, and believed they only led to
decreased productivity. Although he opposed them, his work with scientific
management led disenfranchised workers to look to unions for support. Under
scientific management, the demands of work intensified. Workers became
dissatisfied with the work environment and became angry. During one of
Taylor's own implementations at the Watertown Arsenal in Massachusetts,
a strike led to an investigation of Taylor's methods by a U.S. House of
Representatives committee. The committee reported in 1912, concluding that
scientific management did provide some useful techniques and offered valuable
organizational suggestions, but that it also gave production managers a
dangerously high level of uncontrolled power. After an attitude survey of the
workers revealed a high level of resentment and hostility towards scientific
management, the Senate banned Taylor's methods at the arsenal.

Scientific management lowered worker morale and exacerbated existing

conflicts between labor and management. As a consequence, the method
inadvertently strengthened labor unions and their bargaining power in labor
disputes, thereby neutralizing most or all of the benefit of any productivity gains
it had achieved. Thus, its net benefit to owners and management ended up as
small or negative. It took new efforts, borrowing some ideas from scientific
management but mixing them with others, to produce more productive formula.

Scientific management may have exacerbated grievances among workers about

oppressive or greedy management. It certainly strengthened developments that
put workers at a disadvantage: the erosion of employment in developed
economies via both off shoring and automation. Both were made possible by the
deskilling of jobs, which was made possible by the knowledge transfer that
scientific management achieved. Knowledge was transferred both to cheaper
workers and from workers into tools. Jobs that once would have required craft
work first transformed to semiskilled work, then unskilled. At this point the
labor had been commoditized, and thus the competition between workers and
worker populations moved closer to pure than it had been, depressing wages and
job security. Jobs could be off shored giving one human's tasks to others—
which could be good for the new worker population but was bad for the old or
they could be rendered nonexistent through automation giving a human's tasks
to machines. Either way, the net result from the perspective of developed-
economy workers was that jobs started to pay less, then disappear. The power of
labor unions in the mid-twentieth century only led to a push on the part of
management to accelerate the process of automation, hastening the onset of the
later stages just described. In a central assumption of scientific management,
"the worker was taken for granted as a cog in the machinery." While scientific
management had made jobs unpleasant, its successors made them less
remunerative, less secure, and finally nonexistent as a consequence of structural
unemployment.

It is often assumed that Fordism derives from Taylor's work. Taylor apparently
made this assumption himself when visiting the Ford Motor Company's
Michigan plants not too long before he died, but it is likely that the methods at
Ford were evolved independently, and that any influence from Taylor's work
was indirect at best. Charles E. Sorensen, a principal of the company during its
first four decades, disclaimed any connection at all. There was a belief at Ford,
which remained dominant until Henry Ford II took over the company in 1945,
that the world's experts were worthless, because if Ford had listened to them, it
would have failed to attain its great successes. Henry Ford felt that he had
succeeded in spite of, not because of, experts, who had tried to stop him in
various ways disagreeing about price points, production methods, car features,
business financing, and other issues. Sorensen thus was dismissive of Taylor
and lumped him into the category of useless experts. Sorensen held the New
England machine tool vendor Walter Flanders in high esteem and credits him
for the efficient floor plan layout at Ford, claiming that Flanders knew nothing
about Taylor. Flanders may have been exposed to the spirit of Taylorism
elsewhere, and may have been influenced by it, but he did not cite it when
developing his production technique. Regardless, the Ford team apparently did
independently invent modern mass production techniques in the period of 1905-
1915, and they themselves were not aware of any borrowing from Taylorism.
Perhaps it is only possible with hindsight to see the zeitgeist that indirectly
connected the budding Fordism to the rest of the efficiency movement during
the decade of 1905-1915.
Criticism of Taylor's principles of effective workmanship and
the productivity of the workers continues today. Often, his theories are
described as man-contemptuous and portrayed as now overhauled. In practice,
however, the principles of Taylor are still being pursued by Kaizen and Six
Sigma and similar methodologies, which are based on the development of
working methods and courses based on systematic analysis rather than relying
on tradition and rule of thumb.
Taylorism is, according to Stephen P. Waring, considered very controversial,
despite its popularity. It is often criticized for turning the worker into an
"automaton" or "machine". Due to techniques employed with scientific
management, employees claim to have become overworked and were hostile to
the process. Criticisms commonly came from workers who were subjected to an
accelerated work pace, lower standards of workmanship, lower product-quality,
and lagging wages. Workers defied being reduced to such machines, and
objected to the practices of Taylorism. Many workers formed unions, demanded
higher pay, and went on strike to be free of control issues. This ignited class
conflict, which Taylorism was initially meant to prevent. Efforts to resolve the
conflicts included methods of scientific collectivism, making agreements with
unions, and the personnel management movement.

In the middle of 1960 some counter-movements to Taylorism

arose. Representatives of the so-called Human Relations movement urged
humanization and democratization of the working world. The criticism of
Taylorism supports the unilateral approach of labor. Strictly speaking,
Taylorism is not a scientific theory. All theories of F. W. Taylor are based on
experiments. On the basis of samples, conclusions were made, which were then
generalized. There is no representativeness of the selected sample.
Another reason for criticizing Taylor's methods stemmed from Taylor's belief
that the scientific method included the calculations of exactly how much time it
takes a man to do a particular task, or his rate of work. However, the opposition
to this argument is that such a calculation relies on certain arbitrary, non-
scientific decisions such as what constituted the job, which men were timed, and
under which conditions. Any of these factors are subject to change, and
therefore can produce inconsistencies. Some dismiss so-called "scientific
management"/Taylorism as pseudoscience.

Organised Labour Reaction to Taylorism

In 1911, organized labor erupted with strong opposition to scientific
management, spreading from Samuel Gompers, founder and President of the
American Federal of Labor (AFL), in the US to far around the globe. By
1913 Vladimir Lenin wrote that the "most widely discussed topic today in
Europe, and to some extent in Russia, is the 'system' of the American engineer,
Frederick Taylor"; Lenin decried it as merely a "'scientific' system of sweating"
more work from laborers. Again in 1914, Lenin derided Taylorism as "man’s
enslavement by the machine." However, after the Russian Revolutions brought
him to power, Lenin wrote in 1918 that the "Russian is a bad worker who must
learn to work. The Taylor system... is a combination of the refined brutality of
bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatest scientific achievements in
the field of analysing mechanical motions during work, the elimination of
superfluous and awkward motions, the elaboration of correct methods of work,
the introduction of the best system of accounting and control, etc. The Soviet
Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of
science and technology in this field."
The early US history of labor relations with scientific management was
described by Dr Drury thusly: ...for a long time there was thus little or no direct
conflict between scientific management and organized labor... However, one of
the best known experts once spoke to us with satisfaction of the manner in
which, in a certain factory where there had been a number of union men, the
labor organization had, upon the introduction of scientific management,
gradually disintegrated. From 1882 when the system was started until 1911, a
period of approximately thirty years, there was not a single strike under it, and
this in spite of the fact that it was carried on primarily in the steel industry,
which was subject to a great many disturbances. For instance, in the general
strike in Philadelphia, one man only went out at the Tabor plant managed by
Taylor, while at the Locomotive shops across the street two thousand struck.
Serious opposition may be said to have been begun in 1911, immediately after
certain testimony presented before the Interstate Commerce Commission by
Harrington Emerson revealed to the country the strong movement setting
towards scientific management. National labor leaders, wide-awake as to what
might happen in the future, decided that the new movement was a menace to
their organization, and at once inaugurated an attack... centered about the
installation of scientific management in the government arsenal at Watertown.
It intensifies the modern tendency toward specialization of the work and the
task displaces skilled workers and weakens the bargaining strength of the
workers through specialization of the task and the destruction of craft skill
which leads to over-production and the increase of unemployment. It looks
upon the worker as a mere instrument of production and reduces him to a semi-
automatic attachment to the machine or tool and tends to undermine the
worker's health, shortens his period of industrial activity and earning power, and
brings on premature old age.
Owing to application of "scientific management" in part in government arsenals,
and a strike by the union molders against some of its features as they were
introduced in the foundry at the Watertown Arsenal, "scientific management"
received much publicity. The House of Representatives appointed a committee,
consisting of William B. Wilson, William C. Redfield and John Q. Tilson to
investigate the system as it had been applied in the Watertown Arsenal. In its
report to Congress this committee sustained Labor's contention that the system
forced abnormally high speed upon workmen, that its disciplinary features were
arbitrary and harsh, and that the use of a stop-watch and the payment of a bonus
were injurious to the worker's manhood and welfare. At a succeeding session of
Congress a measure was passed which prohibited the further use of the stop-
watch and the payment of a premium or bonus to workmen in government
establishments.

The Watertown Arsenal in Massachusetts provides an example of the

application and repeal of the Taylor system in the workplace, due to worker
opposition. In the early 1901, neglect in the Watertown shops included
overcrowding, dim-lighting, lack of tools and equipment, and questionable
management strategies in the eyes of the workers. Frederick W. Taylor and Carl
G. Barth visited Watertown in April 1909 and reported on their observations at
the shops. Their conclusion was to apply the Taylor system of management to
the shops to produce better results. Efforts to install the Taylor system began in
June 1909. Over the years of time study and trying to improve the efficiency of
workers, criticisms began to evolve. Workers complained of having to compete
with one another, feeling strained and resentful, and feeling excessively tired
after work. There is, however, no evidence that the times enforced were
unreasonable. In June 1913, employees of the Watertown Arsenal petitioned to
abolish the practice of scientific management there. A number of magazine
writers inquiring into the effects of scientific management found that the
"conditions in shops investigated contrasted favorably with those in other
plants".
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit effort has been made to establish the description of scientific
management theory, its evolution, legacy, impact on planned economyand
negative sides.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe scientific management theory. In
addition, issues surrounding its evolution, its philosophy and legacy were
treated. Also relationship of scientific management theory to mechanization and
automation and its impact on planned economies were discussed. Added was
discussion on the negative sides of scientific management theory and the
reaction of organized labour to it.
 Unit 2: Bureaucratic Management Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe bureaucratic management theory and trace
its evolution, its philosophy and its criticisms. This is to enable the learner
overcome some misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding bureaucratic
management theory arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary
approaches to it. You are therefore, expected to give the unit maximum
attention it deserves.

Objectives
The central issues examined in this chapter are as follows:
1. What is bureaucracy?
2. What are the major theories of bureaucracy?
3. What are the functions of bureaucracies?
4. How are bureaucracies organized? How should they be organized?
5. Why are bureaucrats so powerful, and why has bureaucratic power
expanded?
6. How, and how successfully, are bureaucracies controlled?

2.0Main Contents
Description of Bureaucratic Management Theory
The first writer to closely devote his time to inputs of bureaucracy to
administration and management was Max Weber. A German sociologist who
developed the principles of bureaucracy to help his country (Germany) manage
its growing industrial enterprises at a time when it was striving to become a
world power (Ashiru, 2001).

Weber thought bureaucratic organization to be the most rational means of

carrying out imperative control over human beings. Although he recognizes the
importance of personal (Charismatic) leadership, he concluded that bureaucratic
leadership was indispensable for the mass administration required in a modern
society (Albers, 1973). He, for instance was unequivocal when he asserts that
bureaucratic organization is superior both in intensive efficiency and the scope
of its operations, and is formally capable of application to all kinds of
administrative tasks…bureaucratic administration is all things being equal,
always, from a normal technical points of view, the most rational type. For the
needs of mass administration today, it is completely indispensable. Weber, thus,
advocated five basic principles upon which bureaucratic system of
administration is based. These principles will be seen and discussed as follows:
 1. In a bureaucracy, formal-authority is derived from positions held in
organization. Authority is the power to hold people accountable for their
actions and to make decisions concerning the use of organizational
resources. Authority empowers the superiors to direct and control their
subordinates' behaviours to achieve organisational goals. In a
bureaucratic system of administration a manager compels obedience not
by personal qualities she/he possesses, but because of the position she/he
occupies which is associated with certain level of authority and
responsibility.
2. That in bureaucracy, people should occupy positions based on
performance and merit. But not based on cheap social advantage or
personal contacts. Most organizations in today’s Nigeria crumble because
managers fail to take this point into cognizance. Appointments are based
on personal contacts and relations and not on job related skill or merit.
3. The extent of each position's formal authority and task responsibilities
and its relationship to other positions in an organization should be clearly
specified.
4. A hierarchical arrangement of positions in an organization, so that
employers will know whom to report to, and who reports to them.
Managers must create an organizational hierarchy of authority that makes
it clear who reports to whom and to whom managers should go if conflict
arises. This principle is especially more useful in the armed forces.
5. A well-defined system of rules, standard, operating procedures and norms
must be created, so that behaviours can effectively be controlled in an
organization.

Today, we often think of bureaucracy as vast impersonal organizations that put

impersonal efficiency ahead of human needs. Like the scientific management
theorists, Weber, sought to improve the performance of socially important
organizations by making their operations predictable and productive (Ashiru,
2001).

To many, the term bureaucracy suggests inefficiency and pointless and time-
consuming formalities: in short, ‘red tape’. In the field of politics, bureaucracy
refers to the administrative machinery of the state: that is, the massed ranks of
civil servants and public officials who are charged with the execution of
government business. Others follow Max Weber in seeing bureaucracy as a
distinctive form of organization found not just in government but in all spheres
of modern society. What cannot be doubted, however, is that, as government
has grown and the breadth of its responsibilities has expanded, bureaucracy has
come to play an increasingly important role in political life. No longer can civil
servants be dismissed as mere administrators or policy implementers; instead,
they are key figures in the policy process, and even sometimes run their
 countries. A reality of ‘rule by the officials’ may lie behind the façade of
representation and democratic accountability. The organization and control of
bureaucratic power is therefore one of the most pressing problems in modern
politics, and one that no political system has found easy to solve.

Organization of bureaucracies
One of the limitations of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is that it suggests that
the drive for efficiency and rationality will lead to the adoption of essentially
similar bureaucratic structures the world over. Weber’s ‘ideal type’ thus ignores
the various ways in which bureaucracies can be organized, as well as
differences that arise from the political, social and cultural contexts in which
bureaucracies operate. The organization of bureaucracies is important for two
reasons. It influences the administrative efficiency of government and affects
the degree to which public accountability and political control can be achieved.
The issue of organization has, however, assumed a deeper significance as
pressure has built up, especially from the 1980s onwards, to reduce public
spending. This partly reflects the Spread of New Right ideas but is also one of
the consequences of economic globalization. Many states have therefore looked
to rationalize their administrative machinery, a process that has sometimes been
portrayed as ‘reinventing government’. This process nevertheless has major
political, and even constitutional, implications.

All state bureaucracies are in some way organized on the basis of purpose or
function. This is achieved through the construction of departments, ministries
and agencies charged with responsibility for particular policy areas; education,
housing, defence, drug control, taxation and so forth. Of course, the number of
such departments and agencies varies over time and from state to state, as do the
ways in which functional responsibilities are divided or combined. For example,
the broadening responsibilities of the US government were reflected in the
creation of the Department of Health and Human Services in 1953, and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1965. In the UK, the
changing concerns of government led to the creation of the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport in 1997, and the replacement of the Department of
Employment by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2001.

The most significant feature of these functionally defined bureaucracies is the

degree of centralization or decentralization within them. The systems found in
the remaining communist regimes, such as China, which are subject to strict
party control and supervision at every level, are amongst the most centralized
bureaucratic systems in the world. Nevertheless, the sizes and complexity of
communist bureaucracies have also provided considerable scope for bureau and
departmental independence.
Despite the formal ‘leadership’ of the CPSU, the Soviet bureaucracy, for
example, functioned as a labyrinthine mechanism for interest articulation and
aggregation amounting to a form of institutional pluralism’ (Hough, 1927). The
UK civil service has traditionally been centralized. It has a common recruitment
and promotion policy, and a single career and salary structure. In some ways,
the Fulton Report of 1966 furthered the ideal of a unified civil service by
abolishing the division between the clerical, executive and administrative
grades, which had amounted to a form of class system. However, by shifting
emphasis away from generalists in senior positions, it placed greater stress on
subject expertise and specialist knowledge, so strengthening ‘departmentalism’.
Moreover, in establishing the Civil Service Department (subsequently
abolished) to take responsibility for recruitment, promotions and conditions of
work it also facilitated bureaucratic autonomy.

The most centralized liberal-democratic bureaucracy has traditionally been that

in France. Whereas bureaucracies in states such as the UK and Germany have
developed through a process of reform and adaptation, the French system was
constructed on the basis of the Napoleonic model of administration. This
emphasized the importance of a highly centralized and hierarchically structured
body of technical experts, wedded to the long term interests of the French state.
The Conseild’Etat (Council of State) is the supreme administrative body in
France; it advises on legislative and administrative matters and acts as the
highest administrative court. The Ecole Nationaled Administration and the
Ecole Poly technique function as training schools for civil servants, giving the
so-called grands corps (senior administrators and technical experts) unrivalled
prestige. To some extent, however, the Napoleonic model of strict discipline
and uniformity has never been fully realized. Divisions tend to exist between
generalists and specialists, between the grand corps and junior civil servants,
and between rival bureaux and departments, particularly between the finance
ministry and the major spending ministries.

The USA, in contrast, is an example of a decentralized bureaucracy. The federal

bureaucracy operates under the formal authority of the president as chief
administrator. However, it is so diffuse and unwieldy that all presidents struggle
to coordinate and direct its activities. One reason for this fragmentation is that
the responsibilities of the federal government overlap with those of state and
local governments, whose cooperation is required to ensure effective
implementation. A second reason is the impact of the separation of powers.
While executive departments and agencies operate under presidential authority
via their cabinet secretaries or directors, a bewildering array of independent
regulatory commissions have been created, and are funded, by Congress.
Although presidents appoint the members of these commissions, they cannot
dismiss them or interfere with their responsibilities as laid down by Congress. A
third reason is that there is tension between permanent civil servants, who are
appointed through competitive public examination and placed on one of the
General Schedule grades, and the much smaller number of political appointees
in so-called Schedule C posts. While the latter can be expected to make loyalty
to the administration their priority, the former may be more committed to the
growth of their bureaux or the continuance of their services and programmes.

The conventional structure of government bureaucracies has come under

particular scrutiny and pressure since the 1970s. In extreme cases, this has led to
attempts to restructure the administrative state. The Clinton administration, for
instance, was deeply impressed by the ideas developed in Osborne and
Gaebler’s Reinventing Government (1992). This suggested that the job of
government is to ‘steer’ not to-‘row’. In other words, government works best
when it concerns itself with policy-making and leaves the delivery of services or
policy implementation to other bodies acting as agents of the state. In theory,
such an approach need not necessarily be linked to the contraction of state
responsibilities, but its most enthusiastic advocates have undoubtedly come
from the New Right, which has embraced this analysis as part of its broader
attack on big government

These ideas have been influential in the USA and a number of other western
countries. The construction of an enabling state, even a ‘skeletal state, has been
taken furthest in New Zealand but they have also affected the UK, through the
civil service reforms introduced by Thatcher and Major, and further developed
by Blair. These ideas have provided the basis for the ‘new public management’.
A significant step down this road was taken in 1988 with the launching of the
Next Steps initiative, which began dismantling a unified national administration
by restricting ministries to their ‘core’ policy functions and handing over
responsibility for implementation to executive agencies, as occurs in Sweden.
By 1996, 70 per cent of the UK’s civil servants were working in these Next
Steps agencies, with a growing body of work being contracted out to private
bodies.

Attempts to compensate for alleged inefficiency and unresponsiveness in public

administration have also led to the wider use of performance targets and quality
measurement. The Blair government, since 1997, has attempted to extend a
culture of target setting and performance review across the UK public sector,
linking target fulfillment to funding and being willing publicly to expose
‘under-performance’. Such innovations have also been accompanied by a
substantial increase in the role of quangos (i.e. qausi autonomous non-
governmental organization) in the administration of services such as health,
education, urban development and regulation. In 1996, there were an estimated
5207 quasigovernmental bodies in the UK, spending over £60 billion a year (35
 per cent of total public Spending) and employing 60000 staff. However, the
most radical attempt to ‘roll back the state’ in the UK has been made through
the policy of privatisation, which, from the 1980s onwards, saw industries such
as telecommunications, electricity, gas, water and local transport transferred
from public to private ownership. Public private partnerships have also given
private bodies a greater role in public-service funding and delivery.

As governments struggle to keep public spending under control, such

developments, especially the divorce between policy advice and policy
implementation, are likely to become more common. However, the drive to
streamline administration, promote efficiency and cut costs carries political
costs. The most obvious of these is the weakening of public accountability and
the emergence of a ‘democratic deficit’. One of the strengths of a unified civil
service is that it supports the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, which
ensures that appointed officials are ultimately answerable to elected politicians
and, through them, to the public. The creation of semi-independent executive
agencies and, above all, quangos tends to mean that ministers no longer take
responsibility for day-to-day administrative or operational matters. Supporters
of reorganization, on the other hand, argue that this can be counterbalanced by
the improvement of delivery standards through the use of charters and other
performance targets. A second problem is that the introduction of management
techniques, structures and, increasingly, personnel from the private sector may
weaken the public-service ethos that state bureaucracies have striven over the
years to develop.

Functions of bureaucracies
On the face of it, bureaucracies fulfill a single, but vital, function. Their primary
concern is with the execution and enforcement of the laws, made by the
legislature and the policies decided by the political executive. Indeed, while
other functions of government such as representation, policy-making and
interest articulation are carried out by a variety of institutions, policy
implementation is solely the responsibility of civil servants, albeit working
under their political masters. Moreover, the Weberian model of bureaucracies as
rational and objective machines appears to divorce the administrative world
from the political world. ln this view, bureaucrats are seen simply as cogs in a
machine, as reliable and efficient administrators operating within a fixed
hierarchy and according to clearly defined rules. The reality is very different.
Despite their formal subordination and impartiality, bureaucrats exert
considerable influence on the policy process, and thus fulfill a number of key
functions in any political system. The most important of these functions are the
following;
1. carrying out administration,
2. offering policy advice,
 3. articulating and aggregating interests, and
4. maintaining political stability.

Administration
The core function of the bureaucracy is to implement or execute law and policy.
It is thus charged with administering government business. This is why the
bureaucracy is sometimes referred to as ‘the administration’, while the political
executive is termed ‘the government’. This distinction implies that a clear line
can be drawn between the policy-making role of politicians and the policy-
implementing role of bureaucrats. Certainly, the vast majority of the world’s
civil servants are engaged almost exclusively in administrative responsibilities
that range from the implementation of welfare and social-security programmes
to the regulation of the economy, the granting of licenses and the provision of
information and advice to citizens at home and abroad. The sizes of
bureaucracies are therefore closely linked to the broader responsibilities of
government. Civil service employment in the UK expanded in proportion to the
role of government throughout the twentieth century.

It reached a peak of 735 000 in the 1970s, but then contracted to 499 000 by
1996 owing to the pursuit of neoliberal policies from the 1980s onwards. The
federal bureaucracy in the USA expanded significantly as a result of the New
Deal and has now grown to over 2.5 million strong; and the USSR’s central
planning system eventually required 20 million state officials to administer it.

Nevertheless, the image of bureaucrats as mere functionaries who apply rules

and carry out orders issued by others can be misleading in the first place, since
much administrative detail is of necessity left to officials, civil servants may be
allowed significant discretion in deciding precisely how to implement policy.
Second, the degree of political control exercised over the bureaucracy varies
greatly from state to state whereas state officials in China are subject to strict
and continuous party supervision, in France and Japan their high status and
reputation for expertise guarantee them a considerable degree of autonomy.
Third, in their capacity as policy advisers, senior civil servants at least have the
ability to shape the policies that they are later required to administer.

Policy advice
The political significance of the bureaucracy stems largely from its role as the
chief source of the policy information and advice available to government. This
policy role helps to distinguish top-level civil servants, who have daily contact
with politicians and are expected to act as policy advisers, from middle-ranking
and junior-ranking civil servants, who deal with more routine administrative
matters. Debate about the political significance of bureaucracies therefore tends
to concentrate on this elite group of senior officials. In theory, a strict
distinction can be drawn between the policy responsibilities of bureaucrats and
those of politicians. Policy is supposedly made by politicians; bureaucrats
simply offer advice. The policy role of civil servants therefore boils down to
two functions: outlining the policy options available to ministers, and reviewing
policy proposals in terms of their likely impact and consequences. The policy
influence of senior officials is further restricted by the fact that they are either
required to be politically neutral, as in the UK, Japan and Australia, or are
subject to a system of political appointment, as in the USA.

However, there are reasons to believe that the policy role of civil servants is
politically more significant than is suggested above. For instance, there is no
clear distinction between making policy and offering policy advice. Quite
simply, decisions are made on the basis of the information available, and this
means that the content of decisions is invariably structured by the advice
offered. Moreover, as the principal source of the advice available to politicians,
bureaucrats effectively control the flow of information. Information can thus be
concealed or at least ‘shaped’ to reflect the preferences of the civil service. The
principal source of bureaucratic power is nevertheless the expertise and
specialist knowledge that accumulates within the bureaucracy. As the
responsibilities of government expand and policy becomes more complex,
‘amateur’ politicians almost inevitably come to depend on their ‘professional’
bureaucratic advisers.

Articulating interests
Although by no means one of their formal functions, bureaucracies often help to
articulate and sometimes aggregate interests. Bureaucracies are brought into
contact with interest groups through their task of policy implementation and
their involvement in policy formulation and advice. This has increased as a
result of corporatist tendencies that have blurred the divisions between
organized interests and government agencies. Groups such as doctors, teachers,
farmers and business corporations thus become ‘client groups’, serviced by their
respective agencies, and also serve as an invaluable source of information and
advice. This clientelism may benefit the political system insofar as it helps to
maintain consensus. By virtue of having access to policy formulation, it is more
likely that organized interests will cooperate with government policy. On the
other hand, clientelism may also interfere with the public responsibilities and
duties of civil servants. This, for instance, occurs when US regulatory agencies
end up being controlled by the industries they supposedly regulate. When group
interests coincide with those of the bureaucracy, a policy nexus may develop
that democratic politicians find impossible to break down.
 Political stability
The final function of bureaucracies is to provide a focus of stability and
continuity within political systems. This is sometimes seen as particularly
important in developing states, where the existence of a body of trained career
officials may provide the only guarantee that government is conducted in an
orderly and reliable fashion. This stability depends very largely on the status of
bureaucrats as permanent and professional public servants: while ministers and
governments come and go, the bureaucracy is always there. The Northcote-
Trevelyan reforms of 1870 that created the modern UK civil service were based
on the principles of impartial selection political neutrality, permanence and
anonymity. Even in the USA, where senior officials are appointed politically
through a so-called ‘spoils system’, the mass of federal bureaucrats are career
civil servants.

However, continuity can also have its disadvantages. In the absence, of effective
public scrutiny and accountability, it can undoubtedly lead to corruption, a
problem that is found in many developing states, where it is compounded by
widespread poverty and other disadvantages. In other cases, permanence may
breed in civil servants either a tendency towards arrogance and insularity, or a
bias in favour of conservatism. Career civil servants can come to believe that
they are more capable of defining the common good or general will than are
elected politicians. They may therefore feel justified in resisting radical or
reformist political tendencies, seeing themselves as custodians of the state’s
interest.

Theories of Bureaucracy
The question of bureaucracy engenders deep political passions. In the modern
period these have invariably ben negative. Liberals criticize bureaucracy for its
lack of openness and accountability. Socialists, particularly Marxists, condemn
it as an instrument of class subordination; and the New right, for its part,
portrays bureaucrats as self-serving and inherently inefficient. Underlying these
contrasting views is deeper disagreement about the very nature of bureaucracy.
Quite simply, the term bureaucracy has been used in so many different ways
that the attempt to develop an overall definition may have to be abandoned
altogether. Albrow (1970:84-105) identified no fewer than seven modern
concepts of bureaucracy:
a. Bureaucracy as rational organization
b. Bureaucracy as organizational inefficiency
c. Bureaucracy as rule by officials
d. Bureaucracy as public administration
e. Bureaucracy as administration by officials
f. Bureaucracy as organization
 g. Bureaucracy as modern society.

To some extent, these contrasting concepts and usages reflect the fact that
bureaucracy has been viewed differently by different academic disciplines.
Students of government, for example, traditionally understood bureaucracy in a
literal sense to mean ‘rule by the bureau’: that is, rule by appointed officials. In
considerations on Representative Government ([1861] 1951), J. S. Mill
therefore contrasted bureaucracy with representative forms of government – in
other words, rule by elected and accountable politicians. In the field of
sociology, bureaucracy has typically been understood as a particular type of
organization, as a system of administration rather than a system of government.
Bureaucracy in this sense can be found not only in democratic and authoritarian
states but also in business corporations, trade unions, political parties and so on.
Economists, on the other hand, sometimes view bureaucracies as specifically
‘public’ organizations. They are thus characterized by the fact that being funded
through the tax system they are neither discipline by neither profit motive nor
responsive to market pressures. In order to make sense of these various usages,
here contrasting theories of bureaucracy will be examined:
i. Bureaucracy as a rational-administrative machine;
ii. Bureaucracy as a conservative power bloc; and
iii. Bureaucracy as a source of government oversupply.

Rational-administrative model
The academic study of bureaucracy has been dominated by the work of Max
Weber. For Weber, bureaucracy was an ‘ideal type’ of rule based on a system of
rational rules, as opposed to either tradition or charisma. He identified a set of
principles that supposedly characterize bureaucratic organization. The most
important of these are the following:
1. Jurisdictional areas are fixed and official, and ordered by laws or rules;
2. There is a firmly ordered hierarchy, which ensures that lower offices are
supervised by specified higher ones within a chain of command;
3. Business is managed on the basis of written documents and a filling
system;
4. The authority of officials is impersonal and stems entirely from the post
they hold, not from personal status;
5. Bureaucratic rules are strict enough to minimize the scope of personal
discretion; and
6. Appointment and advancement within a bureaucracy are based on
professional criteria, such as training, expertise and administrative
competence.

The central feature of bureaucracy from the Weberian perspective is its

rationality, because bureaucratization reflects the advance of a reliable,
predictable and, above all, efficient means of social organization. For Weber,
bureaucracy was nothing less than the characteristic form of organization found
in modern society, and, in his view, its expansion was irreversible. Not only was
this a result of the technical superiority of bureaucracy over other forms of
administration, but it was also a consequence of significant economic, political
and cultural developments. The development of bureaucratization was closely
linked to the emergence of capitalist economies - in particular, to the greater
pressure for economic efficiency and the emergence of larger-scale business
units. The development of the modern state, and the extension of its
responsibilities into the social and economic spheres, also led to the growth of
powerful government bureaucracies.

In Weber’s view, the growth of bureaucratization was further stimulated by the

pressures of democratization, which weakened ideas such as tradition, privilege
and duty, and replaced them with a belief in open competition and meritocracy.
He believed that the process of ‘rationalization’ would ensure that all industrial
societies, whether nominally capitalist or communist, would increasingly
resemble each other as they adopted bureaucratic forms of administration. This
version of what is called the convergence thesis was subsequently developed
by James Burnham (1905-87) in the Managerial Revolution (1941). This
seminal text of managerialism suggested that, regardless of their ideological
differences, all industrial societies are governed by a class of managers,
technocrats and state officials whose power is vested in their technical and
administrative skills.

Weber was nevertheless aware that bureaucracy was a mixed blessing. In the
first place, organizational efficiency would be purchased at the expense of
democratic participation. Bureaucratization would strengthen hierarchical
tendencies, albeit ones based on merit, meaning that command would be
exercised from above by senior officials rather than from below by the masses.
This would destroy the socialist dream of a dictatorship of the proletariat,
which, Weber accurately, as it turned out predicted, would develop into a
‘dictatorship of the official’. In this respect, Weber drew conclusions similar to
those of his friend Robert Michels (1878-1936), who developed the iron law of
oligarchy on the basis of his study of political parties.

However, Weber was less pessimistic than Michels about the prospects for
liberal democracy. Although he recognized the tendency of bureaucrats to seek
the perpetuation of bureaucracy and to exceed its administrative function, he
believed that this could at least be resisted through the use of liberal devices
such as electoral highlight which was that the domination of the bureaucratic
ideal could bring about a ‘pigeon-holing of the spirit’ as the social environment
became increasingly depersonalized and mechanical. Reason and bureaucracy
could therefore become an ‘iron cage’ confining human passions and individual
freedom.

Power-bloc model
The view of bureaucracy as a power bloc stems largely from socialist analysis,
and particularly from Marxism. Although Marx developed no systematic theory
of bureaucracy in the manner of Weber, the outlines of a theory are discernible
in his writings. Rather than seeing bureaucracy as a consequence of the
emergence of an emergence of a complex industrial society, Marx linked it to
the specific requirements of capitalism. He was thus concerned less with
bureaucratization as a broader social phenomenon, and more with the class role
played by the state bureaucracy. In particular, he saw the bureaucracy as a
mechanism through which bourgeois interests are upheld and the capitalist
system defended.

The analysis of class biases running through the state bureaucracy has been
extended by neo-Marxists such as Ralph Miliband (1969). Particular attention
has been paid to the capacity of senior civil servants to act as a conservative
veto group that dilutes, even blocks, the radical initiatives of socialist ministers
and socialist governments. As Miliband put it, top civil servants’ are
conservative in the sense that they are, within their allotted spheres, the
conscious or unconscious allies of existing economic and social elites’. This
happens for a number of reasons. Most obviously, despite the formal
requirements of political neutrality, top civil servants share the same educational
and social background as industrialists and business managers, and are therefore
likely to share their ideas, prejudices and general outlook. The possibility that
rising civil servants may harbor radical or socialist sympathies is also countered
by recruitment and promotion procedures designed to ensure their ideological
‘soundness’.

Miliband believed that the most important factor reinforcing the conservative
outlook of higher civil servants is their ever-increasing closeness to the world of
corporate capitalism. This has been a consequence of growing state intervention
in economic life, ensuring an ongoing relationship between business groups and
civil servants, who invariably come to define the ‘national interest’ in terms of
the long-term interests of private capitalism. In turn, this relationship is
reinforced by the interchange of personnel between government and business,
often seen as a ‘revolving door’, through which the state bureaucracy recruits
from the private sector and civil servants are offered lucrative employment
opportunities when they retire. The implication of this analysis is that, if senior
bureaucrats are wedded to the interests of capitalism, a major obstacle stands in
the way of any attempt to achieve socialism through constitutional means.
One of the flaws of the Marxist theory of bureaucracy is that it pays little
attention to the problem of bureaucratization in socialist systems. For Marx and
Engels, this problem was effectively discounted by the assumption that the
bureaucracy, with the state, would wither away as a classless, communist
society came into existence. This left Marxism open to criticism by social
scientists such as Weber and Michels, who argued that bureaucracy is a broader
social phenomenon, and one that the socialist emphasis on common ownership
and planning could only strengthen. The experience of twentieth-century
communism made it impossible for Marxist thinkers to continue ignoring this
problem.

The most influential Marxist analysis of post capitalist bureaucracy was

developed by Leon Trotsky. Russian Marxist, political thinker and
revolutionary. An early critic of Lenin’s theory of the party and leader of the
1905 St. Petersburg Soviet, Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks in 1917, becoming
Commissar for War, isolated and out-manoevered after Lenin’s death in 1924,
he was banished from the USSR in 1929, and assassinated in Mexico in 1940 on
the instructions of Stain. Trotsky’s theoretical contribution to Maxism consists
of his theory of ‘permanent revolution’, his consistent support for
internationalism, and his analysis of Stainism as a form of ‘bureaucratic
degeneration’.

In The Revolution Betrayed (1937) Trotsky highlighted the problem of

bureaucratic degeneration. In his view, a combination of Russian backwardness
and the proletariat’s lack of political sophistication had created conditions in
which the state bureaucracy could expand and block further advances towards
socialism. The Stalinist dictatorship was thus merely the political expression of
these dominant bureaucratic interests, entirely cut off from those of the masses.
While Trotsky saw the bureaucracy as a social stratum that could be removed
by a political revolution, the Yugoslav dissident and former colleague of
Marshal Tito Milovan Djilas (1911-95) portrayed it as a ‘new class’. For Djilas
(1957) the power of the bureaucracy in orthodox communist regimes stemmed
from its control of productive wealth, and this meant that communist social
systems increasingly resembled a form of state capitalism.

Bureaucratic oversupply model

The idea that critics of bureaucracy come exclusively from the left was
overturned by the emergence of rational choice and public choice theories.
These had a considerable impact on the New Right, and in particular helped to
shape its views about the nature of the state and the emergence of big
government. Central to this model of bureaucracy is a concern with the interests
and motivations of bureaucrats themselves. Rational choice theory is based on
the same assumptions about human nature as those in neoclassical economics.
That is, that individuals are rationally self-seeking creatures or utility
maximizers. Public choice theory, particularly prominent in the USA and
associated with the Virginia school of political analysis, applies this economic
model of decision-making to the public sector.

In Bureaucracy and Representative Government (1971) William Niskanen

argued that senior bureaucrats, regardless of their image as public servants, are
primarily motivated by career self-interest and thus seek an expansion of the
agency in which they work and an increase in its budget. This is because
bureaucratic growth guarantees job security, expands promotion prospects,
improves salaries and brings top officials greater power, patronage and prestige.
Bureaucracies thus contain a powerful inner dynamic, leading to the growth of
government itself and the expansion of public responsibilities. For the New
Right, the ability of appointed officials to dictate policy priorities to elected
politicians goes a long way towards explaining how state growth has occurred
under governments of very different ideological complexions. Similarly, the
image of bureaucrats as nature’s social democrats has important implications for
New Right government’s intent on rolling back the frontiers of the state. They
believe that, quite simply, unless bureaucratic power can be checked or
circumvented any attempt to pursue free market polices doomed to failure.

This New Right critique also focuses attention on the non-market character of
state bureaucracies, and draws an unflattering comparison between private
sector and public sector bodies. In this view, private-sector bodies such as
business corporations are structured by a combination of internal and external
factors. The principal internal influence on a business is the quest for profit
maximization, which impels the firm towards greater efficiency through the
exertion of a constant downward pressure on costs. Externally, businesses
operate in a competitive market environment, which forces them to respond to
consumer pressures through product innovation and price adjustments.

In contrast, bureaucracies are not disciplined by the profit motive. If costs

exceed revenue, the taxpayer is always there to pick up the bill. Similarly, state
bureaucracies are usually monopolies, and are therefore in no way forced to
respond to market pressures; the result is that bureaucracies in common with all
public sector bodies are inherently wasteful and inefficient. Moreover, the
service they provide are invariably of poor quality and does not meet consumer
needs or wishes. This private good philosophy of the New Right dictates not
only that state bureaucracies should be scaled down, but also that, when this is
not possible, private-sector management techniques should be introduced
Critics of public choice theory usually argue that it is flawed because it abstracts
the individual from his or her social environment. A conservative value bias, so
the arguments go; is built into the theory by the assumption that human beings
are always rationally self-interested. Others, however, have used a public choice
approach but reached very different conclusions. Dunleavy (1991), for example,
argued that, if individual bureaucrats are rational actors, they are more likely to
favour bureau-shaping strategies than, as conventional public-choice theory
suggests, budget maximizing ones.

Budget-maximizing priorities certainly go hand in hand with state growth,

especially in the absence of market disciplines. However, it is difficult to
undertake collective action to achieve this end, and senior officials tend to be
more interested in work-related benefits than in narrowly financial benefits.
Dunleavy suggested that bureaucrats are likely to assign their highest priority to
providing themselves with congenial work and an amenable and attractive
working environment. This is because senior civil servants are especially
concerned with the interest and importance of their work tasks, and because
public-sector employment provides them with relatively modest opportunities to
improve their salaries, job security and promotion prospects. Clearly, top
officials concerned about bureau shaping would operate in a very different way
from the empire builders of New Right demonology.

4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe bureaucracy, its organization,
function and theories.

5.0 Summary
The term bureaucracy has been used in a number of ways. Originally, it meant
rule by officials as opposed to elected politicians. In the social sciences, it is
usually understood as a mode of organization. Modern political analysts,
however, use the term bureaucracy to mean the administrative machinery of the
state, bureaucrats being nonelected state officials or civil servants, who may or
may not be subject to political control.

Three major theories of bureaucracy have been advanced. The Weberian mode
suggests that bureaucracy is a rational-administrative machine, the characteristic
form of organization in modern society. The conservative power-bloc model
emphasizes the degree to which the bureaucracy reflects broader class interests
and can resist political control. The bureaucratic oversupply model emphasizes
a tendency towards ‘big’ government caused by the pursuit of career self-
interest on the part of civil servants.
The core function of the bureaucracy is to implement or execute law and policy
through the administration of government business. However, civil servants also
play a significant role in offering policy advice to ministers, in articulating and
aggregating interests (especially through links to client groups), and in
maintaining political stability and continuity when there is a change of
government or administration.

Bureaucracies have traditionally been organized on the basis of purpose or

function; hence their division into departments, ministries and agencies. The
degree of centralization or decentralization within them varies considerably.
Modern trends, however, are towards the divorce of policy-making from policy
implementation, and the incorporation of private-sector management
techniques, if not outright privatization.
Unit 3: Functional Management Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the functional management theory and trace
its evolution, its philosophy and its criticisms. This is to enable the learner
overcome some misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the functional
management theory arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary
approaches to it. You are therefore, expected to give the unit maximum
attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe functional management theory,
2. Narrate its categories and
3. Explain its principles.

Main Contents
Description of Functional Management Theory
During the 20th century a body of literature emerged which considered the
problem of designing the structure of organization as a major managerial task.
The objective of this literature was to define principles, which could guide
managers in the performance of their tasks. Prominent among the architects of
this literature was Henry Fayol, who proposed a number of principles found
useful in the management of a large coal mining company in France. Henry
Fayol, a French engineer, was the author of "Administration Industrial et
generale" meaning "General and industrial administration". Although Fayol’s
work first appeared in 1961 in French it was not translated in English until 1929
by the International Institute of Management at Geneva.

Categories of functional management theory

Reflecting upon his managerial career Fayol found that all industrial activities
could be divided into six categories: viz:
a. Technical (production);
b. Commercial (buying selling and exchange);
c. Financial (search for, and opitimuse use of capital);
d. Security (protection of property and persons);
e. Accounting (including statistics); and
f. Managerial (planning, organizing, command, coordination and control).

Fayol observed that the first five categories were relatively well known;
consequently, he concentrated most of his work on the analysis of the
managerial category. He devoted his attention to what a manager does, thereby
giving rise to the "functional" management thought (Ashiru, 2001).
Functional management is the most common type of
organizational management. The organization is grouped by areas of speciality
within different functional areas (e.g., finance, marketing, and engineering).
Some refer to a functional area as a "silo". Besides the heads of a firm's product
and/or geographic units the company's top management team typically consists
of several functional heads such as the chief financial officer, the chief
operating officer, and the chief strategy officer. Communication generally
occurs within a single department. If information or project work is needed
from another department, a request is transmitted up to the department head,
who communicates the request to the other department head. Otherwise,
communication stays within the department. Team members complete project
work in addition to normal department work.
The main advantage of this type of organization is that each employee has only
one manager, thus simplifying the chain of command.

Henri Fayol's management theory is a simple model of how management

interacts with personnel. Fayol's management theory covers concepts in a broad
way, so almost any business can apply his theory of management. Today the
business community considers Fayol's classical management theory as a
relevant guide to productively managing staff.

The fourteen principles of functional management theory

The management theory of Henri Fayol includes 14 principles of management.

From these principles, Fayol concluded that management should interact with
personnel in five basic ways in order to control and plan production.

1. Planning. According to Fayol's theory, management must plan and schedule

every part of industrial processes.

2. Organizing. Henri Fayol argued that in addition to planning a manufacturing

process, management must also make certain all of the necessary resources (raw
materials, personnel, etc.) came together at the appropriate time of production.

3. Commanding. Henri Fayol's management theory states that management

must encourage and direct personnel activity.

4. Coordinating. According to the management theory of Henri Fayol,

management must make certain that personnel works together in a cooperative
fashion.

5. Controlling. The final management activity, according to Henri Fayol, is for

the manager to evaluate and ensure that personnel follow management's
commands.
Fayol went further to suggest fourteen principles of management, which are;
1. Division of work,
2. Authority,
3. Discipline,
4. Unity of command,
5. Unity of Direction,
6. Subordination of individual interest,
7. Remuneration,
8. Centralization,
9. Scalar chain (line of
Authority), 10.Order,
11.Equity,
12.Stability of tenure of office,
13.Initiative and
14.Esprit de corps.

Fayol however, caution that these principles on their own may not be exhaustive
as there may be others which he did not either recognize or could not implement
in his career.
Keep in mind the limitations of Fayol's management theory. Since its
publication in the early 1900s, Fayol's theory of management has come
under criticism. Fayol never conducted research; instead he based his theory
on personal experience.
4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe functional management theory, its
categories and principles.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe functional management theory.
In addition, isues surrounding its evolution, its philosophy and criticisms were
treated.
Unit 4: Human Relations Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the human relations theory and trace its
evolution, its philosophy and its criticisms. This is to enable the learner
overcome some misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the human relations
theory arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You
are therefore, expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe human relations theory, functional management theory,
2. Narrate its evolution, and
3. Discuss its criticism.

Main Contents
Description of Human Relations Theory
Human Relations Theory is a management theory, included in the Behavioral
School founded by Elton Mayo following the conclusions obtained in several
studies performed in several North American companies.
From these studies stands out one, accomplished between 1924 and 1932, in a
factory of the Western Electric Company in Hawthorne (near Chicago), place
which came to give the name to the study: Hawthorne Experiments. The initial
goal of these experiments was to determine how the changes in the payment and
work conditions (illumination, temperature, rest times, work accidents, fatigue,
personnel rotation, etc.) influence people and their work productivity. For that is
performed the subdivision of a rewinding workshop in two parts: in one are
made changes in the schedules, brightness level, rest times, etc., while the other
is kept as control group.
Such as expected, the suppositions that productivity increased with the
improvement of the work conditions were confirmed in these experiments, The
great surprise occurred when the investigators observed that productivity also
increased when the work conditions were deteriorated.
It was, so, concluded that the human relations and the work environment that
results from there and the creation of bonds among the workers who felt
observed by an administration worried with their wellbeing are much more
important for the increase of productivity then simple physical conditions and
work materials. It was, so, given an end to the assumption of “economic men”
in which based the Classic School, giving place to the assumption of “social
men”.
Human Relations Theory base principle that men have social needs desires
rewarding relationships in the work place and answers more to the peer pressure
then to the superiors’ authority and administrative control forms its main
contribution for management. It’s from here that emerges a new type of
management more concerned in knowing the workers individual and group
needs and seek for efficiency and productivity through leadership, motivation
and communication. On the other hand, it’s also from the Human Relations
Theory that emerges the informal organization concept.

Human relations theory refers to the researchers of organizational

development who study the behaviour of people in groups, in particular
workplace groups and other related concepts in fields such as industrial and
organizational psychology. It originated in 1930s’ Hawthorene studies, which
examined the effects of social relations, motivation and employee satisfaction
on factory productivity. The movement viewed workers in terms of
their psychology and fit with companies, rather than as interchangeable parts,
and it resulted in the creation of the discipline of human relations management.
This theory is premised on the following;

1. The power of natural groups, in which social aspects take precedence

over functional organizational structures.
2. The need for reciprocal communication, in which communication is two
way, from worker to chief executive, as well as vice versa.
3. The development of high quality leadership to communicate goals and to
ensure effective and coherent decision making.
It has become a concern of many companies to improve the job-oriented
interpersonal skills of employees. The teaching of these skills to employees is
referred to as "soft skills" training. Companies need their employees to be able
to successfully communicate and convey information, to be able to interpret
others' emotions, to be open to others' feelings, and to be able to solve conflicts
and arrive at resolutions. By acquiring these skills, the employees, those in
management positions and the customer can maintain more compatible
relationships.
The human relations management theory is a researched belief that people
desire to be part of a supportive team that facilitates development and growth.
Therefore, if employees receive special attention and are encouraged to
participate, they perceive their work as significant and they are motivated to be
more productive, resulting in high quality work. The following human relations
management theory basics became evident during human relatios studies;
 1. Individual attention and recognition aligns with the human relatios
theory,
2. Many theorists supported the motivational theory, and
3. Studies supported the importance of human relations in business.

Evolution of Human Relations Theory

The human relations theory is a reaction against "person as machine" concept of
Taylor and his scientific management theory. It conceives administration and
management a humanistic rather than mechanistic conception of the scientific
managers.

A close look at the scientific management theory pictures workers as machines,

not social beings with certain psychological needs. This short sightedness and
incompleteness was what drew the attention of some observers to the need to
design a more humane and people friendly theory. The most outstanding among
the architects of Human Relations movement were George Elton Mayo and Frit
J. Roethliberger. A leading classicist, Lillian M. Gibreth in 1914, wrote one of
the earliest treaties on industrial psychology. Using the techniques of her work
and others, George Elton Mayo, a psychologist and Fritz J. Roethliberger,
sociologist, both professors of Industrial Research at the Harvard Graduate
School of Business Administration, undertook some significant experiment in
the field of individual psychology between 1927 and 1932.

The Western Electric Company, through the cooperation of the National

Academy of Sciences, arranged to have Mayo and his associates carry out major
study in its Hawthorne works in Chicago. Although Western Electric Company
was considered to be a progressive company, since it provided man, material
benefits such as pension plans and recreational facilities, it had noted great deal
of work dissatisfaction. Efficiency experts has attempted to reduce tension
among the employees and to increase production by using methods of changing
working hours, spacing rest periods, changing environment conditions,
simplifying and reducing work methods, and so forth. However, the result had
not been conclusively positive (Ashiru, 2001).

Using industrial Psychology set forth by Taylor, Mayo and Roethlisberg started
the Hawthorn experiments. Initially, they assumed that each worker was an
isolated unit, in essence, a "human machine" whose action and performance
could be measured and factors governing a worker's low productivity were
wrong physical environment, such as inadequate heating, excessive humidity,
bad lighting, too much noise, fatigue caused by the incorrect proportions and
timing of work periods and rest periods, wasted motions, resulting in lost times
in doing the work; inadequate wage incentives caused by the method of
determining the incentive and other physical factors inherent in individual and
his physical environment. As they made progress in the experiment, these
researchers found that their basic assumptions were not producing result.
Unforeseen and uncontrolled factors were interacting with the controlled
environmental factors.

There were Psychological factors that turned out to be of far greater importance
than physical working conditions, hours of work and wages. Thus, everything
had not been controlled in the experiment; the human mind was free to do as it
pleased. Mayo and associates followed up their experiments and investigated
the myriads of informal groupings, informal relationships, social cliques,
patterns of communication, and patterns of informal leadership. From these
investigations, it was established that various group were operating in the work
environment. Furthermore, these groups have evolved their own set of norms or
codes of conduct. Most times, groups' norms were in conflict with management
aims. In fact, many new factors were discovered and identified by Mayo and
associates. About the same time Mayo and associates were making these
discoveries other developments related to human relation movement were
emerging in industrial organization among them were a strong trend toward
Unionization and a high level of conflict between labour and management
(Ashiru, 2001). While supervision in the 1920s, could be described as primarily
authoritarian, during the 1930s, there was a new trend toward "being nice to
people", with resultant "keep them happy" philosophy. This trend was merged
into Human Relation Movement. This later approach was first as ineffective as
the former. Nevertheless, it can rightly be concluded that the findings of the
Hawthorne studies has helped in bringing about a dramatic change in
management and administrative studies.

The Human Relations function with its origin firmly rooted in the field of
personnel administration was to attract strong negative responses from
practicing administrators and managers in the middle of 1940s.
The results of Professor Elton Mayo's Hawthorne studies proved that the factor
most influencing productivity is relationships. The researchers realized
productivity increased due to relationships and being part of a supportive group
where each employee's work had a significant effect on the team output. As a
side result, the researchers noticed that the increased attention the workers
received by the researchers increased motivation and productivity, which
resulted in what is the Hawthorne Effect.

After the Hawthorne experiments, Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor

revealed how the motivational theory ties into theories of human relations.
Maslow suggested five basic needs (physiological, safety, love, esteem and self-
actualization) were motivating factors when viewing an employee's work
values, because the employee is motivated to ensure the most important of these
individual needs are met. McGregor supported motivation beliefs by realizing
that employees contribute more to the organization if they feel responsible and
valued.

The result of the studies regarding human relations in the workplace show that
people want to have a sense of belonging and significance while being treated
with value and respect. Treat an employee with respect and value, and their
individual productivity and quality increases to support the organizational team.

Criticism of Elto Mayo’s involvement in Human Relations

Mayo's work is considered by various academics to be the counterpoint
of Taylorism and scientific management. Taylorism, founded by Frederick W.
Taylor, sought to apply science to the management of employees in the
workplace in order to gain economic efficiency through labour productivity.
Elton Mayo's work has been widely attributed to the discovery of the 'social
person', allowing for workers to be seen as individuals rather than merely robots
designed to work for unethical and unrealistic productivity expectations.
However, this theory has been contested, as Mayo's purported role in the human
relations movement has been questioned. Nonetheless, although Taylorism
attempted to justify scientific management as a holistic philosophy, rather than a
set of principles, the human relations movement worked parallel to the notion of
scientific management. Its aim was to address the social welfare needs of
workers and therefore elicit their co-operation as a workforce.
The widely perceived view of human relations is said to be one that completely
contradicts the traditional views of Taylorism. Whilst scientific management
tries to apply science to the workforce, the accepted definition of human
relations suggests that management should treat workers as individuals, with
individual needs. In doing so, employees are supposed to gain an identity,
stability within their job and job satisfaction, which in turn make them more
willing to co-operate and contribute their efforts towards accomplishing
organisational goals. The human relations movement supported the primacy of
organizations to be attributed to natural human groupings, communication
and leadership. However, the conventional depiction of the human relations
school of management, rising out of the ashes of scientific management is
argued to be a rhetorical distortion of events.
Firstly, it has been argued that Elton Mayo's actual role in the human relations
movement is controversial and although he is attributed to be the founder of this
movement, some academics believe that the concept of human relations was
used well before the Hawthorne investigations, which sparked the human
relations movement. Bruce and Nyland (2011) suggest that many academics
preceded Mayo in identifying a concept similar to that of the human relations
movement even going as far to suggest that the output and information collected
by the Hawthorne investigations was identified well before Mayo by Taylor. In
addition, Wren and Greenwood (1998) argue that Taylor made important
contributions to what inspires human motivation, even though his ultimate
findings were somewhat different from the human relations movement.
Another name which has been attributed to pre-existing human relations ideas is
that of Henry S. Dennison. The one time president of the Taylor Society has
been linked to both Taylorist principles as well human relation ideals thus
creating a nexus between Taylorism and human relation thought. Dennison
demonstrated an activist concern both with the rationale and character of
workers, and with the control and management undertaken by managers of the
business enterprise.
In order to assess the validity of human relations as a benchmark for rights
within the workplace, the contribution of Taylorism in comparison to human
relations must be established. Taylorism and scientific management entailed to
be a "complete mental revolution" and as Taylor explained, Taylorism sought to
encourage managers and labourers to "take their eyes off of the division of the
surplus as the important matter, and together turn their attention toward
increasing the size of the surplus." This notion of management appealed to the
employer as it addressed organisational problems, inefficiencies and adverse
employer-employee relations. Scientific management aimed to use science and
qualitative data in the selection of employees and facilitate the use of employee
databases and performance reviews. First, scientific management aimed to
reduce inefficiency through studying the time and motions in work tasks. The
object of time studies was to determine how fast a job should and could be
done. Second, Taylor purported to introduce specific quantitative goals to
individual employees in order to provide challenging time restraints and thus
increasing productivity. Most importantly, Taylor sought to increase
productivity through organization of behaviour.
The theoretical goals of human relations were no different from those of
Taylorism. In essence, both viewpoints sought to make the workplace a more
efficient and worker-friendly place. Although some more specific goals and
outcomes of each movement were different, each, broadly speaking, aimed to
advance the workplace and create a coherent group of individuals, while still
maintaining a hierarchical system with managers in control. The notion of
Taylorism was supportive of improvement in pay and conditions in workplaces
under the proviso that workers were paid in accordance to their
output. However, human relations claimed to eliminate such calls entirely
suggesting radical and maybe even unrealistic ideas.
4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe human relations theory, its evolution
and criticism.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe human relations theory. In
addition, issues surrounding its evolution, its philosophy and criticisms were
treated.
MODULE 4: SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE THEORIES II

Unit 1: Administrative Management Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the administrative management theory and
trace its evolution and philosophy. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the administrative management
theory arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You
are therefore, expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe administrative management theory,
2. Narrate its evolution, and
3. Discuss its philosophy

Main Contents
Description of Administrative Management Theory
According to Julian Paul Sidin, administrative management examines an
organization from the perspective of the managers and executives responsible
for coordinating the activities of diverse groups and units across the entire
organization. Administrative management focus on how and what managers
should do in their jobs. Administrative management also seeks to create an
organization that leads to both efficiency and effectiveness.

Administrative management is one of the functions, departments or sections

existing in any organization. The aim of the administrative function is to
manage the information needs of the organization so that timely, relevant and
accurate information can be given to managers at all the different levels to
enabling them take meaningful decisions. Without such information it is not
possible to manage any organization, function or process. Administrative
managers are middle and senior managers and leaders who make certain that
information flows and resources are employed efficiently across the whole
organization. They ensure that all operations and system run smoothly and in
the most effective manner.

Philosophy of Administrative Management Theory

Administrative management theory is identified on the following:

1. Management Oriented Theory: The management oriented theory does not

give many attentions to the problems of the workers.
 2. Lack of Importance to Informal Organization: The administrative
management theory gives importance only to the formal organization
structure. It does not give any importance to informal organization or
groups.
3. Concept Borrowed From Military Science: Administrative management
theories were borrowed from military science. They tried to apply these
concepts to the social and business organization.
4. Mechanical Approach: Administrative management theory has a
mechanical approach. It does not deal to the important aspects of
management such as motivation, communication and leading.
5. Henri Fayol identified five major functions of management: Planning,
Organizing, Commanding (directing), Coordinating, Controlling.
6. Besides that, Fayol prefaced his famous definition of management by
starting what he considered to be the key activities of any industrial
undertaking. He outlines six such key activities: technical activities,
commercial activities, financial activities, security activities, accounting
activities, managerial activities. Example for technical activities is
production, example for commercial activities is buying and selling,
example of financial activities is securing capital, example of security
activities is safeguarding property, example of accounting activities is
providing financial information, and example of managerial activities is
planning and organizing.
7. Furthermore, Henri Fayol also classified 14 principles of management:
Division of work, Authority, Discipline, subordination of individual
interest to General interest, Remuneration, Centralization, Equity,
Initiative, Esprit De Corps, stability of Tenure of personnel, Unity of
Direction, Scalar Chain, and Unity of command. According to Henri
Fayol, a manager should require the following qualities and skills: Work
experience, mental qualities, Moral qualities, General education, Special
Knowledge, Physical Quality.

Evolution of Administrative Management Theory

The first expert of Administrative management theory was Henri Fayol (1841-
1925). Fayol is called the “Father of modern management”. Henri Fayol was a
French industrialist and a management consultant. He started the functional
approach to management. In 1916, he wrote a book titled “Administration
Industrialle et Generalle” (Principles and Practices of Management) (Julian Paul
Sidin, 2011). Administrative management also can be seen as managing
information through people. The administrative function is that section in an
organization that is responsible for the orderly collection, processing, storing,
and distributing of information to decision makers and managers within the
organization to enable them to execute their tasks as well as other role players
outside the organization.

This school of thought was initially popular among American writers. In 1937,
Luther Gullick and Lyndall Urwick published papers on the Science of
Administration in which they joined the acronym POSDCORB that stands for
Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting and
Budgeting. These seven principles are fast becoming professional watchwords.

This line of thought is under the contention that the main functions of a public
administrator are:

a. Plan the direction of an organisation;

b. Build up the appropriate structure of authority on which the work is to be
done, (organizing);
c. Staffing, that is, appointing suitable persons to every position in the
organization;
d. Coordinating all the various activities to achieve the desired goal;
e. Reporting which involves establishing communication channel that can
facilitate the process of keeping all informed of what is going on; and
f. Budgeting, this involves all aspects of financial administration.

Gullick and Urwick were bent on devising administrative principle with a

universal application. They contend that the principle of POSDCORB as
highlighted above if properly developed can logically work in any kind of
administrative institution with degree of success (Onuoha, et. al., 1999). This
position has been criticized as having over simplified administrator's
responsibilities and being logically inconsistent. These critics came up with
two-fold conclusions, first, some of the principles were partially contradictory
(e.g. The principle of Centralization and Decentralization) and second, that
these principles gave no direction as to how to choose the one most appropriate
for a particular situation for instance, one principle holds that, for the purpose of
control, workers should be grouped either according to functions, work process,
clientele or geographical location and yet, the principle is silent on which one to
adopt at a given time or place (Aghayere, 1995).

4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe administrative management theory,
its evolution and philosophy.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe administrative management
theory. In addition, issues surrounding its evolution and philosophy were
treated.
Unit 2: Behavioural Science Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the behavioural science theory and trace its
evolution and philosophy. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the behavioural science theory
arising from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are
therefore, expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe behavioural science theory,
2. Narrate the evolution of behavioural science
3. Discuss its philosophy

Main Contents
Description of Behavioural Science Theory
Behavioural sciences explore the cognitive processes within organisms and the
behavioural interactions between organisms in the natural world. It involves the
systematic analysis and investigation of human and animal behavior through the
study of the past, controlled and naturalistic observation of the present, and
disciplined scientific experimentation and modeling. It attempts to accomplish
legitimate, objective conclusions through rigorous formulations and
observation. Examples of behavioral sciences
include psychology, psychobiology, anthropology, and cognitive science.
Generally, behavioral science deals primarily with human action and often seeks
to generalize about human behavior as it relates to society.
The term behavioural science is often confused with the term social sciences.
Though these two broad areas are interrelated and study systematic processes of
behaviour, they differ in their level of scientific analysis of various dimensions
of behaviour. Behavioural science abstract empirical data to investigate the
decision processes and communication strategies within and between organisms
in a social system. This involves fields like psychology, social
neuroscience ethology, and cognitive science. In contrast, social sciences
provide a perceptive framework to study the processes of a social system
through impacts of social organization on structural adjustment of the individual
and of groups. They typically include fields like sociology, economics, public
health, anthropology, demography and political science.
Many subfields of these disciplines cross the boundaries between behavioral
and social sciences. For example, political psychology and behavioral
economics use behavioural approaches, despite the predominant focus on
systemic and institutional factors in the broader fields of political science and
economics.

This theory of administration is tailored toward developing a medium of

research and practice which utilizes psychology, sociology, and anthropology as
bases for describing administrative or management principles. It emphasizes
individual and group behaviour, motivation and leadership in an organization.

Contributions of Maslow to Behavioural Science Theory

The behavioural science movement, started in 1940, and it was centered at
understanding individual and their interpersonal relations. This theory owes its
origin to the works of renowned psychologist, Abraham Maslow, who
developed what he called the "Hierarchy of Needs". The crux of this theory is
the contentions that needs are arranged in a hierarchical order. The lowest level
needs are the physiological and the highest level is the self-actualization needs.
These needs are classified in the following order:

1. The physiological needs which include food, drink, shelter, clothing,

relief from pain etc.;
2. Safety or security needs which connotes freedom from threat,
intimidation and harassment;
3. Belonging, love and affection needs. This is the need for friendship,
affiliation, interacting and love;
4. Ego or esteem needs. This is the desire for self-esteem or appreciation
from others; and
5. Self-actualization needs. This is the need to fulfill oneself by maximizing
the use of abilities, skills and potentials.

What can be deduced from Maslow's contention is the assumption that a person
attempts to satisfy basic needs (food, shelter, etc.) before directing behaviour
towards satisfying upper-level needs. A crucial point in Maslow's thinking is
that a satisfied need ceases to motivate. When a person decides that she/he is
earning enough pay for contributing to the organization, money loses its ability
to motivate. This theory is anchored on the belief that people have a desire for
growth and development. This contention may be to the affirmative for some
employees, but not exact for others.

The inherent problem with Maslow's hierarchy was that it was not subjected to
scientific tests by its propounders. While Maslow recognizes that man is never
completely satisfied on any need level, he contends that decreasing percentage
of satisfaction are encountered as lower-level need is replaced in predominance
by a higher-level one. Maslow recommended a hypothetical example for an
average citizen who is 85 percent satisfied in his basic physiological needs, 70
percent in his security needs, 50 percent in his social needs, 40 percent in the
self-esteem category and 10 percent in his self-actualization needs. The
implication of the high degree of need deficiency in the self-actualization need
and esteem categories is that; managers should focus attention on strategies to
correct these deficiencies.

This logic assumes that attempts to satisfy these deficiencies have a higher
probability of succeeding than directing attention to the already fulfilled lower-
order needs. In addition, the highly deficient needs are a potential danger for
managers. An unsatisfied need can cause frustration, conflict and stress in an
organisation. For example, a skilled Secretary in an organisation who is given a
clerical responsibility instead of more appealing Secretarial assignment may feel
being deprived of satisfying self-actualization need. This type of denial in the
fulfillment of need can lead to frustration that may eventually amount to poor
performance.

Philosophy of Behavioural Science Theory

Behavioral science theories have greater potential to enhance the effectiveness
of practice than is currently realized. Many have called for development of
strategies to overcome current barriers to the use of theory in different fields.
Such strategies should explicate the potential of commonly taught behavioral
science theories to facilitate practice and assist practitioners in using such
theories. This unit presents one of such strategies: a set of principles for
practice, derived from multiple behavioral science theories and having many
direct implications for practice.

Behavioral science theories provide much guidance in identifying steps in the

behavior change process, in understanding inter and intra individual variation in
the change process, and in developing support activities, such as guided
practice, that facilitate progression from one step to the next. Some of the many
implications for practice of this principle are as follows:
1. Expect individual differences in readiness to change;
2. Emphasize gradual change;
3. Develop program elements specific to each step in the behavior change
process;
4. Teach the psychological and behavioral skills necessary for successful
performance;
5. Use direct experience (e.g. guided practice; role playing) to activate
performance and strengthen attitude-behavior consistency;
6. Teach goal setting to enable participants to set their own pace for change;
and
 7. Teach self-monitoring skills so participants can chart their own progress.

Psychological factors, notably beliefs and values, influence how people behave.
A key contribution of behavioral science theories to practice is the specification
of beliefs and values relevant to understanding or trying to change behaviors.
An important corollary to the second principle is to know the conceptual and
practical differences between beliefs and values. Beliefs involve consequential
or probabilistic thinking about the relationships between objects or events. For
example, individuals make attributions about the causes of specific events; they
have expectations about the likelihood of certain outcomes. Values are
evaluative judgments about outcomes or events. Individuals may perceive
events as good or bad, as desirable or undesirable. These constructs, which
constitute the cognitive and affective components of attitudes, are the principal
explanatory variables of many behavioral science theories.

In the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1985), for
example, the attitudinal component is determined by beliefs that a behavior
leads to certain outcomes, and evaluative judgments regarding the outcomes.
Understanding the relationships between beliefs and values, as well as their
relationships with behavioral variables, is key to understanding some of the
important differences between behavioral science theories. Moreover, it is easier
to develop programs to change relevant beliefs and values when one is clear on
the distinctions between them. Implications for practice of this principle
include;
a. Develop program components that target beliefs such as perceived personal
risk, self-efficacy, response efficacy and perceived social norms,
b. Develop program components that target values, such as perceived personal
benefits, perceived costs and perceived social relevance,
c. Instilling new beliefs or values is but one of several strategies; programs
may aim to modify existing beliefs or values, or they may aim to enhance
the salience and perceived relevance of existing beliefs or values, and
d. Recognize that multiple beliefs and values generally underlie each belief
and value of primary interest; develop program elements to modify these
underlying beliefs and values.

The more beneficial or rewarding an experience, the more likely it is to be

repeated; the more punishing or unpleasant an experience, the less likely it is to
be repeated. The positive or negative aspect of any experience, whether
psychological or behavioral, is subjectively defined. Thus, application of the
third principle requires practitioners to determine whether seemingly rewarding
experiences are perceived as such by their constituents.
Conducting theory-informed practice often requires measuring such factors, and
designing evaluations that will determine whether programs are effective in
changing them. Practitioners therefore need to utilize research and evaluation
methods to correctly apply behavioral science theory in practical situations. If,
for example, a practitioner wants to assess the existing levels of self-efficacy
and response-efficacy in a target population, research methods are needed to
obtain reliable, valid assessments of these concepts. Similarly, if a program is
intended to change social norms regarding use, a research design is needed that
will determine whether any change in norms has occurred and whether such
change can be attributed to the program. In brief, research and evaluation
methods are critical tools for linking theory and practice. The general
implications of Principles for practice are;

i. Knowledge of the empirical literature underlying a theory is a useful

foundation for determining whether and how theoretical concepts are
relevant to specific practice situations.
ii. To apply theory in needs assessments, formative evaluations for
program planning and other practice activities, research methods
should be used to define, operationalize and measure the theoretical
concepts of interest.
iii. To determine whether programs affect change in the psychological,
and social and other theory based determinants of behavior, research
designs are needed that eliminate rival explanations and provide
evidence of a cause-effect relationship.

Conclusion and implications: Hochbaum et al. (1992) state that practitioners

who doubt the usefulness of theories basically question the existence of a link
between the abstract formulations that are theories and the realities of practice.
Explicating principles for practice is a means of demonstrating such a link, of
demonstrating the implications of theory for education. Most importantly, the
principles may facilitate synthesis of theoretical knowledge, and, thus,
application of an integrated body of knowledge rather than selection and
application of single theories. It is widely acknowledged that no single theory is
adequate for developing effective behavior change strategies. Practitioners need
a framework for applying multiple theories. To the extent that these principles
for practice are valid summaries of the behavioral tenets of the theories from
which they are derived, they may constitute such a framework. Applying the
principles in the framework does present certain challenges. First, as previously
noted, the principles do not supplant the need to study behavioral science
theories. Because the principles generalize across theories they do not specify in
sufficient detail the theoretical constructs which practitioners could apply.
For example, the second principle describes the link between beliefs and
behavior.
One would need knowledge of the Belief Model (Janz and Becker, 1984), the
Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and other theories to determine what
specific beliefs to address in a program or to determine how to measure beliefs
in a program evaluation. Second, practitioners must determine which principles
to apply in a given practical situation. Application of the first principle assumes,
for example, that practitioners know where members of their target group are as
regards the phases of behavior change and what behavioral skills might
facilitate progress to the next phase. Similarly, practice situations vary with
regard to the viability of using direct involvement as a change strategy or using
normative influence factors to achieve behavior change. A third challenge is
that resources are needed to collect information pertinent to the application of
the principles. For example, application of the second principle requires
information about participants' current beliefs and values; application of the
third principle requires information on participants' perceptions of rewards and
incentives, and application of the sixth principle requires information on social
group members whom participants hold in high regard. Practitioners may use
focus groups, small group surveys or other brief measures to obtain such
information. In sum, the challenges of applying the principles are to link the
principles with the set of theories one finds relevant to practice, determine
which principles one can apply in a given practice situation and obtain the
information necessary to take advantage of the relevant principles. The notion
that behavioral science and other disciplines can inform education practice does
not exclude or discount the equally important role of experience in informing
practical decisions. Experience engenders knowledge of the people, knowledge
of the problem, and knowledge of the social system in which the problem
occurs. Experience engenders trust, familiarity, cultural sensitivity and political
awareness—all essential to successful intervention.

4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe behavioural science theory, its
evolution and philosophy.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe behavioural science theory. In
addition, isues surrounding its evolution and philosophy were treated.
Unit 3: Systems Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the systems theory and trace its evolution
and philosophy. This is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions
and ambiguity surrounding the systems theory arising from the multicultural
and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore, expected to give the
unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe systems theory,
2. Narrate its evolution, and
3. Discuss its philosophy

Main Contents

Description of Systems theory

David Easton popularized the Systems paradigm for the analysis of political
life. According to Easton, a political system is that system of interaction in any
society through which binding and authoritative allocations are made. Easton
analyzes political activity by employing the paradigm of the biological system
“whose life processes interact with each other and with the environment to
produce a changing but nonetheless stable bodily state.” Viewed this way,
therefore, public policy is the response of the political system to forces brought
to bear on it from the environment.

Systems theory portrays public policy as an output of the political system. But
systems theory is also a process theory of public policy. Certain key concepts
are central to the understanding of public policy from the systems theoretic
framework. First, is the concept of system ‘which implies an identifiable set of
institutions and activities in society that functions to transform demands into
authoritative decisions requiring the support of the whole society. A crucial
property of a system is the interrelatedness of its parts or elements. Furthermore,
it is assumed that a system will respond to its environment and will seek to
preserve itself. Second, is the concept of inputs which refer to the forces
generated in the environment that affect the political system inputs can take the
form of demand and support. Demands involve actions by individuals and
groups seeking authoritative allocations of values from the authorities. Support
comprises of actions rendered in favour of government such as obedience to the
law and payment of taxes. Inputs are generated from the environment. “The
environment is any condition or circumstance defined as external to the
boundaries of the political system”. Inputs are fed into the black box of decision
making, otherwise called the conversion box, to produce outputs. Outputs are
the decisions and policies of the authorities. Within the systems framework,
allowance is made for feedback. This is the mechanism through 'which the
outputs of the political system influence future inputs into the system.
According to Anderson, the concept of feedback indicates that public policies
(or outputs) may subsequently alter the environment and the demands generated
therein, as well as the character of the political System itself.

Systems theory is a dominant paradigm in orthodox theorizing about public

policy. Its prominence in the policy analysis literature lies more in its
disaggregation of the stages of the policy process and the opportunity it offers
for further studies of these stages. In general, systems theory provides a
convenient umbrella for capturing the complexity of the policy making process
and is to that extent a valuable tool for organizing our inquiry into the causes
and consequences of governmental action. In addition, systems theory poses a
number of questions on the relationship between the environment and the
political system and how the characteristics of the political system, in turn,
affect the content of public policy, inter alia.

There are, however, problems with the use of systems theory in policy analysis.
Much of these problems derive from the processual assumptions of the theory.
The impression that is conveyed to the effect that policy making proceeds in a
systematic way, beginning with input through ‘output’ and on to output, can
hardly be substantiated in the real world of policy making. While not denying
the relevance of the environment for the generation of inputs, the fact remains
that demands and support as basic raw materials of policy are sometimes
initiated within the political system.

A fundamental assumption of systems theory is stability, an assumption that is

implied in such notions as pattern maintenance, equilibrium etc. Much value is
inevitably placed on the imperative of order and predictability. It is for this
reason, that systems theory is, not without some justification, labeled an
ideological, endorsement of the status quo. The implication of this
characterisation is that stability becomes a goal which is pursued at all cost even
if it means suppressing legitimate demands the utility of systems theory is even
more worrisome in situations where stability is a problem and the policy making
machinery is in dire need of change.

Philosophy of Systems Theory

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive
conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts that is
either natural or man-made. Every system is delineated by its spatial and
temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described
by its structure and purpose or nature and expressed in its functioning. In terms
of its effects, a system can be more than the sum of its parts if it
expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system
usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of
behavior. For systems that are self-learning and self-adapting, the positive
growth and adaptation depend upon how well the system is adjusted with its
environment. Some systems function mainly to support other systems by aiding
in the maintenance of the other system to prevent failure. The goal of systems
theory is systematically discovering a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions
and elucidating principles (purpose, measure, methods, tools, etc.) that can be
discerned and applied to systems at every level of nesting, and in every field for
achieving optimized equifinality.
General systems theory is about broadly applicable concepts and principles, as
opposed to concepts and principles applicable to one domain of knowledge. It
distinguishes dynamic or active systems from static or passive systems. Active
systems are activity structures or components that interact in behaviours and
processes. Passive systems are structures and components that are being
processed. E.g. a program is passive when it is a disc file and active when it
runs in memory. The field is related to systems thinking and systems
engineering.

Key Concepts in Systems Theory

1. System: An organized entity made up of interrelated and interdependent

parts.
2. Boundaries: Barriers that define a system and distinguish it from other
systems in the environment.
3. Homeostasis: The tendency of a system to be resilient towards external
factors and maintain its key characteristics.
4. Adaptation: The tendency of a self-adapting system to make the internal
changes needed to protect itself and keep fulfilling its purpose.
5. Reciprocal Transactions: Circular or cyclical interactions that systems
engage in such that they influence one another.
6. Feedback Loop: The process by which systems self-correct based on
reactions from other systems in the environment.
7. Throughput: Rate of energy transfer between the system and its
environment during the time it is functioning.
8. Microsystem: The system closest to the client.
9. Mesosystem: Relationships among the systems in an environment.
10.Exosystem: A relationship between two systems that has an indirect
effect on a third system.
 11.Microsystem: A larger system that influences clients, such as policies,
administration of entitlement programs, and culture.
12.Chronosystem: A system composed of significant life events that can
affect adaptation.

Evolution of Systems Theory

The term "general systems theory" originates from Bertalanffy's general systems
theory (GST). His ideas were adopted by others including Kenneth E.
Boulding, William Ross Ashby and Anatol Rapoport working in mathematics,
psychology, biology, game theory and social network analysis. Sociological
systems thinking started earlier, in the 19th century. Stichweh states: "... Since
its beginnings the social sciences were an important part of the establishment of
systems theory... the two most influential suggestions were the comprehensive
sociological versions of systems theory which were proposed by Talcott
Parsons since the 1950s and by Niklas Luhmann since the 1970s.

Contemporary ideas from systems theory have grown with diverse areas,
exemplified by the work of biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, linguist Béla H.
Bánáthy, sociologist Talcott Parsons, ecological systems with Howard T.
Odum, Eugene Odum and Fritjof Capra, organizational
theory and management with individuals such as Peter Senge, interdisciplinary
study with areas like Human Resource Development from the work of
Richard
A. Swanson, and insights from educators such as Debora Hammond and
Alfonso Montuori. As a trans disciplinary, interdisciplinary and multi-
perspectival domain, the area brings together principles and concepts
from ontology, philosophy of science, physics, computer
science, biology and engineering as well as geography, sociology, political
science, psychotherapy (within family systems therapy) and economics among
others. Systems theory thus serves as a bridge for interdisciplinary dialogue
between autonomous areas of study as well as within the area of systems
science itself.
In this respect, with the possibility of misinterpretations, von
Bertalanffy believed a general theory of systems "should be an important
regulative device in science", to guard against superficial analogies that "are
useless in science and harmful in their practical consequences". Others remain
closer to the direct systems concepts developed by the original theorists. For
example, Ilya Prigogine, of the Center for Complex Quantum Systems at the
University of Texas, Austin, has studied emergent properties, suggesting that
they offer analogues for living systems. The theories of autopoiesis of Francisco
Varela and Humberto Maturana represent further developments in this field.
Important names in contemporary systems science include Russell
Ackoff, Ruzena Bajcsy, Béla H. Bánáthy, Gregory Bateson, Anthony Stafford
Beer, Peter Checkland, Barbara Grosz, Brian Wilson, Robert L. Flood, Allenna
Leonard, Radhika Nagpal, Fritjof Capra, Warren McCulloch, Kathleen
Carley, Michael C. Jackson, Katia Sycara, and Edgar Morin among others. With
the modern foundations for a general theory of systems following World War
I, Ervin Laszlo, in the preface for Bertalanffy's book: Perspectives on General
System Theory, points out that the translation of "general system theory" from
German into English has "wrought a certain amount of havoc".

General System Theory was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing

more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such
criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von
Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such
basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact
scientific theory. Allgemeine Systemtheorie is not directly consistent with an
interpretation often put on 'general system theory,' to wit, that it is a scientific
"theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von
Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater
significance than a single theory which, as we now know, can always be
falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence. He created a new paradigm for
the development of theories.

A system in this frame of reference can contain regularly interacting or

interrelating groups of activities. For example, in noting the influence in
organizational psychology as the field evolved from "an individually
oriented industrial psychology to a systems and developmentally
oriented organizational psychology", some theorists recognize that
organizations have complex social systems; separating the parts from the whole
reduces the overall effectiveness of organizations. This difference, from
conventional models that center on individuals, structures, departments and
units, separates in part from the whole, instead of recognizing the
interdependence between groups of individuals, structures and processes that
enable an organization to function. Laszlo explains that the new systems view
of organized complexity went "one step beyond the Newtonian view of
organized simplicity" which reduced the parts from the whole, or understood the
whole without relation to the parts. The relationship between organisations and
their environments can be seen as the foremost source of complexity and
interdependence. In most cases, the whole has properties that cannot be known
from analysis of the constituent elements in isolation. Béla H. Bánáthy, who
argued—along with the founders of the systems society—that "the benefit of
humankind" is the purpose of science, has made significant and far-reaching
contributions to the area of systems theory.
The systems view is a world-view that is based on the discipline of SYSTEM
INQUIRY. Central to systems inquiry is the concept of SYSTEM. In the most
general sense, system means a configuration of parts connected and joined
together by a web of relationships. The Primer Group defines system as a family
of relationships among the members acting as a whole. Von Bertalanffy defined
system as "elements in standing relationship." Similar ideas are found in
learning theories that developed from the same fundamental concepts,
emphasizing how understanding results from knowing concepts both in part and
as a whole. In fact, Bertalanffy's organismic psychology paralleled the learning
theory of Jean Piaget. Some consider interdisciplinary perspectives critical in
breaking away from industrial age models and thinking, wherein history
represents history and math represents math, while the arts and
sciences specialization remain separate and many treat teaching
as behaviorist conditioning. The contemporary work of Peter Senge provides
detailed discussion of the commonplace critique of educational systems
grounded in conventional assumptions about learning, including the problems
with fragmented knowledge and lack of holistic learning from the "machine-age
thinking" that became a "model of school separated from daily life". In this way
some systems theorists attempt to provide alternatives to, and evolved ideation
from orthodox theories which have grounds in classical assumptions, including
individuals such as Max Weber and Émile Durkheim in sociology and Frederick
Winslow Taylor in scientific management. The theorists sought holistic
methods by developing systems concepts that could integrate with different
areas.

Some may view the contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory which

has as its subject a single part as simply an example of changing assumptions.
The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts,
recognizing interactions of the parts as not static and constant but dynamic
processes. Some questioned the conventional closed systems with the
development of open systems perspectives. The shift originated from absolute
and universal authoritative principles and knowledge to relative and
general conceptual and perceptual knowledge and still remains in the tradition
of theorists that sought to provide means to organize human life. In other words,
theorists rethought the preceding history of ideas; they did not lose them.
Mechanistic thinking was particularly critiqued, especially the industrial-age
mechanistic metaphor for the mind from interpretations of Newtonian
mechanics by Enlightenment philosophers and later psychologists that laid the
foundations of modern organizational theory and management by the late 19th
century.
4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe systems theory, its evolution and
philosophy.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe systems theory. In addition, isues
surrounding its evolution and philosophy were treated.
 Unit 4: Group Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the group theory and trace its evolution and
philosophy. This is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions and
ambiguity surrounding the group theory arising from the multicultural and
multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore, expected to give the unit
maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe systems theory,
2. Narrate its evolution, and
3. Discuss its philosophy

1.0Main Contents
Description of Group theory
Group theory developed within the context of the pluralist paradigm of politics.
Pluralism argues essentially that power in western industrialised societies is
widely distributed among different groups. According to this paradigm, no
group is without power to influence decision-making and equally no group is
dominant. It is a major premise of pluralism that any group can ensure that its
political preferences and wishes are adopted and reflected in governmental
action with sufficient determination and the deployment of appropriate
resources.

Pluralism is a theory of representation in a democracy. It gives a pride of place

to pressure groups and the representation of specific interests by these groups as
a hallmark of liberal democracy. In another sense, the theory legitimises the role
which these groups play in the conduct of government business by emphasizing
the mutuality of obligation which exists between these groups and government.‘

Assumption of Group theory

What are the assumptions of group theory and how relevant are these
assumptions for the understanding of policy making? Group theory begins with
the proposition that interaction and struggle among groups is the central fact of
political life. According to this theory, individuals are important in politics only
when they act as part of, or on behalf of, group interests. A group is a collection
of individuals that may, on the basis of shared attitudes or interests, make
claims upon other groups in society. Groups assume political character when
they make claims through or upon institutions of government.
 According to group theory, politics is the struggle among groups to reflect their
interests in public policy. Conflict often results from this interplay of group
forces. Consequently, “The task of the political system” according to Dye, is to
manage group conflict by;
1. Establishing the rules of the game in the group struggle,
2. Arranging compromises and balancing interests,
3. Enacting compromises in the form of public policy, and
4. Enforcing these compromises.

Public policy will reflect the equilibrium reached in the group struggle, that is,
the “balance which the contending factions or groups constantly strive to tip in
their favour.” Public policy will, however, reflect the interests of dominant
groups defined as those groups gaining in influence, those, in other words who
have the requisite resources such as size, money, information expertise etc.

Group theory and Policy process

How useful is group theory in unraveling the intricate process of policy
making? By insisting that public policy is a product of group struggle, group
theory introduces a dynamic element into the understanding of how policies are
made. In its pluralist context, group theory views public policy as the negotiated
settlement reached “between government agencies and pressure groups
organised into policy” communities. There are nonetheless, basic and
substantive defects in the analysis of the policy process offered by group theory.

First, is the obvious uni-causal explanation of politics and public policy from
the perspective of group struggle alone. This is an exaggerated claim which
overlooks the independent role of individual actors in the policy process.
Second, it is an empirical question whether, indeed power is as widely
distributed in society as group theory claims and more important, whether the
voice of the least powerful ‘is ever audible as to make it significant in the
decision making process. Third, the market place paradigm on which group
theory is anchored raises the significant question about parity in the process of
competition since we are told that the sources of power available to groups may
not be equal. The advantage, which some groups enjoy on account of superior
resource endowment, might be a factor in the dominance of their interests in
public policy. This is more so as they are able to deploy their advantaged
position to secure their interests through for example, the manipulation of the
rules of competition. Fourth, the assumed neutrality of government in the clash
of partisan groups in the value allocation process is questionable if not doubtful,
a point to which we shall return shortly.
4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe group theory, its evolution and
philosophy.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe group theory. In addition, issues
surrounding its evolution and philosophy were treated.
 MODULE 5: SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE THEORIES III

Unit 1: Elite Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the elite theory and trace its evolution and
philosophy. This is to enable the learner overcome some misconceptions and
ambiguity surrounding the elite theory arising from the multicultural and
multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore, expected to give the unit
maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe elite theory,
2. Narrate its evolution, and
3. Discuss its philosophy

Main Contents
Description of Elite Theory
In political science and sociology, elite theory is a theory of the state that seeks
to describe and explain power relationships in contemporary society. The theory
posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite
and policy-planning networks, holds the most power—and this power is
independent of democratic elections. Through positions in corporations or on
corporate boards, and influence over policy-planning networks through financial
support of foundations or positions with think tanks or policy-discussion
groups, members of the "elite" exert significant power over corporate and
government decisions. An example of this belief is in the Forbes magazine
article (published in December 2009) entitled The World's Most Powerful
People, in which Forbes purported to list the 67 most powerful people in the
world (assigning one "slot" for each 100,000,000 of human population). The
basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the elites are
unified, the non-elites are diverse and powerless, elites' interests are unified due
to common backgrounds and positions and the defining characteristic of power
is institutional position.

Even when entire groups are ostensibly completely excluded from the state's
traditional networks of power historically, on the basis of arbitrary criteria such
as nobility, race, gender, or religion, elite theory recognizes that "counter-elites"
frequently develop within such excluded groups. Negotiations between such
disenfranchised groups and the state can be analyzed as negotiations between
 elites and counter-elites. A major problem, in turn, is the ability of elites to opt
counter-elites.
Elite theory developed as an alternative paradigm to pluralism. Elite theory
rejects the pluralist view concerning the distribution of power in society. In the
alternative, elite theory points to the concentration of political power in the
hands of a minority group which, according to Mosca, forms all political
functions, monopolises power and enjoys the advantages that power brings.
From the perspective of elite theory, public policy may be viewed as the values
and preferences of governing elite. Elite theory opposes pluralism, a tradition
that assumes that all individuals, or at least the multitude of social groups, have
equal power and balance each other out in contributing to democratic political
outcomes representing the emergent, aggregate will of society. Elite theory
argues either that democracy is a utopian folly, as it is traditionally viewed in
the conservative Italian tradition, or that democracy is not realizable within
capitalism, as is the view of the more Marxist-compatible contemporary elite
theory permutation.

Assumptions of Elite Theory

The assumptions of elite theory are captured by Thomas Dye and Harmon
Zeigler as follows:
1. Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do
not. Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the
masses do not decide public policy.
2. The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed.
Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socioeconomic strata
of society.
3. The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and
continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites
who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing
circles.
4. Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and the
preservation of the system.
5. Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses but rather the
prevailing values of the elite. Changes in public policy will be
incremental rather than revolutionary.
6. Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic
masses. Elite influence masses more than masses influence elites.

In its classical formulation, elite power could be acquired through military

conquest, revolutionary overthrow, command of economic resources etc. In the
modern state, however, elite status is associated with the development of large
scale organisations and the resultant creation of different kinds of elites such as
political, military and economic elites whose sources of power include access to
formal political office, wealth, technical expertise, knowledge etc. What is
significant for our purpose here is that it is these elites who make policy; that
when they do they tend to reflect their values and preferences and that it is only
a matter of coincidence if the policy decisions of the elite reflect the interests of
the masses, as they sometimes do.

Put this way, elite theory assumes a conspiratorial character and is to that extent
a provocative theory of public policy. It is conspiratorial because of the
underlying premise about elite consensus on fundamental norms of the social
system which limits the choice of policy alternatives to only those which fall
within the shared consensus. The theory is provocative because of the implied
characterisation of the masses as passive, apathetic and ill-informed and the
consequential relegation of their role in policy making.

There are two other issues that should be raised concerning the relevance of
elite theory for policy analysis. Even if we concede the leadership role of elites
in policy formulation, strategic placement in elite position as a source of power
is hardly a scientific conclusion. In addition, we know little or nothing about the
specific form which the participation of the masses in the policy process takes.

To recap, Systems, Group and Elite theories are orthodox theories which have
dominated thinking concerning the way authorities make policy decisions.
Central to the analysis which these theories offer is the role assigned to
government in policy making. All three theories gave a pivotal role to
government in the value allocation process. In systems theory, for example,
government is located inthe black box where inputs are-converted into outputs.
Group theory, on the other hand, assigns to government the role of an umpire in
the struggle among societal groups to reflect their interests in public policy.
Elite theory favours government with the crucial role of carrying into effect,
through its officials and agencies, the values and preferences which the
dominant few want reflected in public policy. The underlying assumption about
government in these theories is that government is an impartial mediator of
conflict in society and, impliedly, a preserver of the social order.

It is a moot question whether government is a neutral actor in’ policy making it

suffices to say, however, that government is not necessarily a disinterested party
in the conflict of interests of partisan groups in society. Indeed, government
sometimes pursues its own preferences which may conflict with the interests of
other groups in the society. The radical objection to orthodox theories of the
policy process lies essentially in the uncritical acceptance of the role of
government as a neutral arbiter of political values.
4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe elite theory, its evolution and
philosophy.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe elite theory. In addition, isues
surrounding its evolution and philosophy were treated.
 Unit 2: Radical Marxist Theory

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the radical Marxist theory and trace its
evolution, impact and philosophy. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the radical Marxist theory arising
from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore,
expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe radical Marxist theory,
2. Narrate its evolution,
3. Discuss its philosophy, and
4. Explain its impact on social history

Main Contents
Description of Radical Marxist theory
Marxists ask a basic question about the relationship between politics and
economics, namely, whether the way society’s economic resources are
distributed affect or determine the exercise of political power. The starting point
in Marxist analysis is not the political process but the form of economic
organisation or the mode of production which exists in a society. Central to
Marx’s analysis is the insistence that the mode of production is the determinant
of the relations of power in society. Marxists argue that social classes are
created on the basis of how people relate to the mode of production that is
dominant in their society. People relate to the mode of production either as
owners or non-owners of the means of production. In a capitalist society,
Marxists argue, two classes exist, namely the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie as owners of means of production are not only economically
dominant but also politically superior. This superiority is assured because the
bourgeoisie also controls the state and its institutions. The state, in the Marxist
thesis, is an instrument of domination by the bourgeoisie, “a product and
manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonism.”

Philosophy of Marxist Theory

Marxist theory is too complex and rigorous than anything that can be sketched
here. There are however, some important points inferable from the class
analytic framework provided by Marxists which are of relevance for the
understanding of policy making. First is the fact that a ruling class exists and
that members of this class are the ultimate policy-makers. Second, Marxists
assign a role to the state in policy making which is clearly different from that of
orthodox theorists.
 From the Marxist perspective, the state is viewed as an instrument which one
class uses to dominate and exploit other classes. This view is encapsulated in
Marx’s oft-quoted saying that “the executive of the modern state is but a
committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie”. Far from
being the neutral actor which the orthodox theories promoted, the state, in
Marxist analysis is viewed as partisan in favour of the interests of the dominant
class. Miliband has offered three reasons why the state is an ' instrument of
bourgeois domination in capitalist society:
1. The similarity in the social background of the bourgeoisie and the state
officials located in government, the civil service bureaucracy, the
military, the judiciary etc.
2. The power of the bourgeoisie to pressure for political action through a
network of personal contacts and associations with those in business and
industry;
3. The constraint placed on the state by the objective power of capital, that
is to say, the limits placed on the freedom of state officials by their need
to assist the process of capital accumulation, a need which stems from the
requirements of a strong economy based for political survival.

Marxist theory is open to charges of determinism even though there are explicit
indications in the work of Marx that the relationship between economic power
and political power is hardly deterministic. As some Marxist scholars, such as
Miliband have argued, the room for autonomous action by the state in capitalist
society is not a remote possibility since the state sometimes carry out reforms
favourable to the underclass. Marxist analysis provides a radically different
approach to the understanding of the policy making process which comes across
the orthodox theorising of that process. If, as Claude has pointed out ‘politics' is
the competition among groups to make public policy conducive to the
realisation of their interests and ideologies" then the role of the ruling class is
determinant in what the state does and what the state chooses not to do in the
value allocation process.

Historical Background of Marxism

Marxism was born in European history. Karl Marx and Friedrich

Engels elaborated the materialist concept of history out of engagements with
German philosophy, French socialism, and British political economy. In the
mid–nineteenth century historical materialism—the radical contention that the
production and exchange of things necessary to the support of human life, the
process through which wealth was created and distributed, was the root cause of
social change and the political revolutions of the eighteenth century—stood
much of the interpretation of the European past, embedded in Hegelian
idealism, on its head. For Marx and Engels the mode of production was the
motor of historical process. Its movement was impossible to understand outside
of the necessary frictions and periodic clashes of a society divided into
irreconcilable classes, primarily the new social strata, the bourgeois and the
proletarian. From the time of its birth Marxism was inexplicable outside of the
transformations associated with the rise of capitalism, a social
formation defined by an accumulative regime driven forward by the extraction
of surplus associated with the wage system and production for profit. Capitalism
and its histories of class formation and struggle figured centrally in Marxist
histories, although the materialist concept of history also was applied fruitfully
to pre-capitalist modes of production.

The first Marxist histories accentuated different analytic features of historical

materialism. In his historical writings on France, for instance, Marx presented
scathing indictments of the personnel of bourgeois power, exposing the
contradictory nature of capitalist "progress" and of those, such as Napoleon
Bonaparte, who would be called upon to lead its march. Such social histories
were conscious assaults on the hypocrisies of bourgeois rule and parodies of the
democratic order. Fueled by a partisan analysis relentless in its use of
oppositional language, Marx meant to convey to all concerned the powerful
class divisions at work in historical process. Marx also commented on the
failures of proletarian organization in the Paris Commune, while Engels reached
back into the German experience to outline the social upheavals of the German
peasant wars. In their later works of political economy, Marx and Engels were
equally passionate but less attuned to the place of political rule or the
mobilization of class resistance. These histories, such as
Marx's Capital (volume 1, 1867), outlined capital's original accumulations by
means of dispossessing a landed peasantry, divorcing small artisan producers
from the means of production, and pillaging new colonial conquests and its
relentless appetite for surplus manifested in extending the length of the working
day, suppressing working-class collectivity, elaborating ever more intricate
divisions of labor, and charting new technological innovation.

Theoretical Foundation of Marxism

These and many other writings formed the theoretical foundation on which
Marxist histories rested for the next century and more. Within what might be
called "the classical tradition," Marxist histories were produced by intellectuals
whose primary commitment was to the revolutionary movement. Their
historical writing, seldom far removed from theoretical questions, was often a
direct attempt to explore historical themes originally addressed by Marx or
Engels. Thus Karl Kautsky, one of a small contingent developing the materialist
concept of history in the late nineteenth century, produced a study of
religion, The Origin of Christianity (1923), a staple of Marxist critique in this
period. Kautsky attempted to situate European and American agriculture in an
1899 publication, The Agrarian Question. His Communism in Central Europe
in the Time of the Reformation (1897) returned directly to Engels's concern with
the German peasant uprisings of the sixteenth century, as did Belfort
Bax's The Peasants War in Germany, 1525–1526 (1899). Early writing on the
Paris Commune included Lissagaray'sHistory of the Commune of 1871(1886),
translated from the French by Marx's daughter Eleanor Marx Aveling.

With the increasing importance of revolutionary activity, most especially in

Russia and culminating in the October Revolutionof 1917, Marxist histories
intersected directly with the perceived needs and understood accomplishments
of proletarian insurrection. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin's The Development of
Capitalism in Russia (1899) was a massive study of the rural economy. An
investigation of the tsarist countryside, the book aimed to outline how varied
modes of production coexisted to produce a specific historically
contextualized social formation and to develop from this research strategic
directions for a workers' revolution in a setting of combined and uneven
capitalist development. This theme also set the stage for Leon Trotsky's
magisterial three-volume narrative The History of the Russian
Revolution (1932), probably historical materialism's most elegantly executed
chronology of class revolt in the first fifty years of marxist historical
production. Trotsky's text was preceded by Louise Bryant's memoir Six Red
Months in Russia (1918) and John Reed's more chronologically focused and
journalistically inclined Ten Days That Shook the World (1919).

The revolutionary movement stimulated Marxist research and bore rich fruit in
the pre–World War I period. Subjects barely touched upon by the founders of
historical materialism emerged out of the new global capitalism orchestrated by
monopoly and threateningly powerful imperialist rivalries. Rudolf
Hilferding's Finance Capital (1910) and Otto Bauer's The Nationalities
Question and Social Democracy (1907) were both published, like Lenin's book,
before their authors reached the age of thirty. They prefigured the concerns
of Rosa Luxemburg, whose writings addressed the new regime of capital
accumulation and accentuated the role of colonies. Luxemburg's politics
breathed a vibrant internationalism and a particular resistance to national
parochialism.

But troubling signs as well showed up on the Marxist horizon in 1914. The
fracturing of the Second International, the working-class organization of
marxism at the time of World War I, suggested the powerful challenges to
orthodoxy that emerged in this period, detailed in the French marxist Georges
Haupt's Socialism and the Great War: The Collapse of the Second
International (1972) and in Carl Schorske's German Social Democracy, 1905–
1917: The Development of the Great Schism(1955). The Russian
Revolution failed to spread to the advanced capitalist economies of the West,
and the ground receptive to Stalinist containments was being tilled. One seed
was the rise of the international Left Opposition, grouped around Trotsky and
later organized in the Fourth International. The scant serious historical self-
reflection on Marxist theory and history produced in these years, such as
Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It
Going? (1937), emanated from this dissident quarter. The Stalinist Comintern of
the interwar years was notable for its mechanical practices and routinization of
theory. As Perry Anderson argued in Considerations on Western
Marxism (1976), the interwar years and beyond largely saw the relinquishment
of historical, economic, and political themes in Marxist intellectual production
and the replacement of Marxist activists at the writing center of historical
materialism by university-based scholars of the left. The center of gravity of
continental European Marxism, in Anderson's metaphor, turned toward
philosophy. Certainly the major Marxist thought in this period was cultivated
among a layer of what Luxemburg and Kautsky
dubbed Kathedersozialisten, professorial socialists. From György Lukács
to Jean-Paul Sartre, class consciousness was written about more as an aesthetic
possibility than as a combative historical process.

Nevertheless, some Marxist histories produced in the post-1920 period

continued to conjoin the social and the political within grounding in economic
life. Much of this writing was produced by Communist Party (CP) intellectuals,
among them the Russian émigré turned English journalist Theodore Rothstein,
who wrote From Chartism to Labourism (1929), an important early account of
the history of the British working-class movement. Something of a combination
of Henry Mayhew, Charles Booth, and Engels, Jürgen Kuczynski authored a
multivolume set of short histories of labor conditions in Germany, France,
and Great Britain that prefigured, in its range of concerns and attention to
periodization, the later approach of Eric J. Hobsbawm. But perhaps the most
important Marxist history in these interwar years was sustained by two British
CP figures, Maurice Dobb and Dona Torr. Dobb returned to the themes
of Capital in his Studies in the Development of Capitalism (1947). Torr, in a
series of largely party-circulated and often inaccessible publications, many of
which were short educational or agitational pieces, stimulated interest and
concern about the working class and its movements among a cohort of
historians whose formative political years were spent in the struggles for
colonial independence, the popular front organizations and cultural milieu of the
late 1930s, the battle to defeat fascism both politically and militarily, and the
postwar campaigns for peace and nuclear disarmament.
 Impact of Marxism on Social History

Marxism's intersection with social history thus has been wide-ranging and
highly influential, if at times constricting in what it seemed able to address. It
has nevertheless actually charted particular spheres of study, such as important
realms of the debate over the nature and meaning of the transition from
feudalism to capitalism. In other areas, most obviously labor history but also
particular chronological periods and topics, such as the English revolutions of
the seventeenth century or the French Revolution of the late eighteenth century,
Marxist histories achieved, for a time at least, interpretive hegemony. The
concerns of Marxist histories always have been a fusion of the economic, the
political, and the sociocultural. Hill, for example, believed that all history was
intellectual history, but this did not prevent him from writing on matters that
blurred distinctions between the material and the cultural, a crossover that
produced or at least illuminated the social. It is inconceivable that European
social history from the Renaissance to the modern period could have developed
historiographically without the insights of Marxist perspectives.

Equally important, Marxist approaches highlighted for all historians—

conservatives, radicals, feminists, and liberals—significant themes in the
historical process. Those themes include the relationships of economic life and
social being; the appreciation of large-scale socioeconomic transformation and
the making of class, gender, and national-ethnic identities; and the importance
of "totality" in historical process and the reciprocity of mercantile, landed, proto
industrial, and capitalist relations in the emergence of the modern world. Indeed
Marxist histories stimulated and enlivened social history, assuring it a measure
of intellectual tenacity by forcing reconsiderations and new appreciations of
large issues. State formation, the subject of a stimulating synthetic statement by
Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer that bridged the medieval and the modern, is
one such area that Marxist approaches have reinvigorated. It is impossible to
think of social history in the 1990s, for instance, without acknowledging the
weight of Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class, not so much
because of the persuasiveness of its research and argument, which have been
contested, but rather because of its tone, vision, and sensibilities. This feel for a
new kind of history, which became the enduring attraction of "the social," was
not the monopoly of the Marxists, but they contributed mightily toward it.
Consequently Marxist histories affected the changing balance of historical
thought as much as they grew out of the material circumstances and internal
debates, polemics, and ruptures of the Marxist movement itself.

The Marxist movement was never a monolith, and sociopolitical and intellectual
histories of Marxism in the European past mark an evolution of uncommon
diversity. The major early political studies of the marxist First and Second
Internationals, including A. Müller Lehning's The International Association,
1855–1859: A Contribution to the Preliminary History of the First
International(1938) and James Joll's The Second International, 1889–
1914(1974), were later complemented by national surveys and specific accounts
of particular countries in restricted chronological periods, many written by
nonmarxists. Among these Tony Judt's Marxism and the French Left: Studies in
Labour and Politics in France, 1830–1981 (1986) is notable for its breadth, and
Gerald H. Meaker's The Revolutionary Left in Spain, 1914–1923 (1974) sets the
stage well for an appreciation of the momentous conflicts of the civil war of the
1930s. The Italian communist experience proved fertile ground for a Marxist
engagement with the national question, especially acute in a country
economically, socially, culturally, and politically fractured. The "southern
question" preoccupied major Marxist thinkers, such as Antonio Labriola
and Antonio Gramsci.

Germany's unique politics of Nazism stimulated significant Marxist

engagements, such as those of Tim Mason, in which social histories of class
intersect with the politics of a disturbing defeat of the left and open out into
histories of class acquiescence and subterranean resistance. British
communism's eclectic origins in religious dissent, the autodidact Labour
Colleges, the meeting of Lib-Lab consciousness, Fabianism, trade unionism,
and the mythological power of the Russian Revolution have been appreciated
by Marxist historians, such as Raphael Samuel and Stuart Macintyre, while
Marxist explorations of various aspects of the Labour Party have sustained
important intellectual engagements. The peculiarities of Scandinavian socialism
have generated equal interest. In the nation-states won to Marxism out of the
dissolutions of World War II and through the contradictory "liberations"
of Joseph Stalin's Red Army, Marxism as a social movement was suffocated at
its potential birth, leaving it deformed and awaiting its over throwers, the most
illustrious of whom would appear, to Western eyes, to be Lech Walesa and
Poland's labor movement Solidarność (Solidarity).

No unity congeals this ongoing relation of social change and the dissenting
tradition, but it is impossible to consider European history without addressing
the Marxist presence. No sooner had communism fallen in 1989, with Marxism
proclaimed dead and history and ideology supposedly at their end, than Marxist
ideas and movements began to reemerge out of the seeming wasteland of
Stalinist decay. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Marxist thought
and communist political organizations were down but certainly not out. The ills
of capitalism—increasing economic inequality and its manifold oppressions and
destabilizing violence—remained very much in evidence, especially in the new,
wildly erratic, and war torn frontier of acquisitive individualism's market
economies, Russia and its former eastern European satellites.

Marxist histories, as the site of new understandings of the social and as the lived
experience of mobilizations attempting to transform society and politics, have
greatly influenced European history. Their intellectual, cultural, economic, and
social meanings have been profound, and, although their future at the turn of the
century was perhaps more clouded than at any time in the previous hundred
years, they have remained a force to reckon with.

4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe radical Marxist theory, its evolution
and philosophy.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe radical Marxist theory. In
addition, issues surrounding its evolution and philosophy were treated.
Unit 3: New Public Management

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the New Public Management and trace its
history, theory and criticism. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the New Public Management arising
from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore,
expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Describe New Public Management,
2. Narrate its history,
3. Discuss its principles, and
4. Explain its theory.

Main Contents
Description of New Public Management
New Public Management (NPM) is an approach to running public
service organizations that is used in government and public service institutions
and agencies, at both sub-national and national levels. The term was first
introduced by academics in the UK and Australia to describe approaches that
were developed during the 1980s as part of an effort to make the public service
more "businesslike" and to improve its efficiency by using private sector
management models. As with the private sector, which focuses on "customer
service", NPM reforms often focused on the "...centrality of citizens who were
the recipient of the services or customers to the public sector." NPM reformers
experimented with using decentralized service delivery models, to give local
agencies more freedom in how they delivered programs or services. In some
cases, NPM reforms that used e-government consolidated a program or service
to a central location to reduce costs. Some governments tried using quasi-
market structures, so that the public sector would have to compete against the
private sector notably in the UK, in health care. Key themes in NPM are;
1. financial control,
2. value for money,
3. increasing efficiency,
4. identifying and setting targets,
5. continuance monitoring of performance, and
6. handing over power to the senior management executives.
Performance was assessed with audits, benchmarks and performance
evaluations. Some NPM reforms used private sector companies to deliver what
were formerly public services. NPM advocates in some countries worked to
remove collective agreements in favour of individual rewards packages at senior
levels combined with short term contracts and introduce private sector-
style corporate governance, including using a Board of Directors approach to
strategic guidance for public organizations. While NPM approaches have been
used in many countries around the world, NPM is particularly associated with
the most industrialized OECD nations such as the United
Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America. NPM advocates focus on
using approaches from the private sector–the corporate or business world–
which can be successfully applied in the public sector and in a public
administration context. NPM approaches have been used to reform the public
sector, its policies and its programs. NPM advocates claim that it is a more
efficient and effective means of attaining the same outcome.

In NPM, citizens are viewed as "customers" and public servants are viewed as
public managers. NPM tries to realign the relationship between public service
managers and their political superiors by making a parallel relationship between
the two. Under NPM, public managers have incentive-based motivation such as
pay-for-performance, and clear performance targets are often set, which are
assessed by using performance evaluations. As well, managers in an NPM
paradigm may have greater discretion and freedom as to how they go about
achieving the goals set for them. This NPM approach is contrasted with the
traditional public administration model, in which institutional decision-making,
policy-making and public service delivery is guided by regulations, legislation
and administrative procedures.

NPM reforms use approaches such as disaggregation, customer satisfaction

initiatives, customer service efforts, applying an entrepreneurial spirit to public
service, and introducing innovations. The NPM system allows the expert
manager to have a greater discretion. Public Managers under the New Public
Management reforms can provide a range of choices from which customers can
choose, including the right to opt out of the service delivery system completely.
New Public Management draws practices from the private sector and uses them
in the public sector of management. NPM reforms use market forces to hold the
public sector accountable and the satisfaction of preferences as the measures of
accountability. In order for this system to proceed, certain conditions, such as
the existence of competition, must exist and information about choices must be
available. Reforms that promise to reinvent government by way of focusing on
results and customer satisfaction as opposed to administrative and political
processes fail to account for legislative self-interest. Institutions other than
federal government, the changes being trumpeted as reinvention would not even
be announced, except perhaps on hallway bulletin boards.

Comparisons between New Public Management and New Public

Administration
New Public Management is often mistakingly compared to New Public
Administration. The ‘New Public Administration’ movement was one
established in the USA during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Though there
may be some common features, the central themes of the two movements are
different. The main thrust of the New Public Administration movement was to
bring academic public administration into line with a radical egalitarian agenda
that was influential in US university campuses. By contrast the emphasis of the
New Public Management movement a decade or so later was firmly managerial
in the sense that it stressed the difference that management could and should
make the quality and efficiency of public services. It focuses on public service
production functions and operational issues contrasted with the focus on public
accountability, ‘model employer’ public service values, ‘due process,’ and what
happens inside public organizations in conventional public administration. That
meant New Public Management doctrines tended to be opposed to egalitarian
ideas of managing without managers, juridical doctrines of rigidly rule-bound
administration and doctrines of self-government by public-service professionals
like teachers and doctors.
The table below gives a side-by-side comparison of the two systems core
aspects/characteristics

New Public Management New Public Administration

Hands on approach Hierarchy and rules

Explicit standards Apolitical, non-partisan civil service

Emphasis on output control Internal regulations

Disconnection of units Equality (Equity?)

Importance of the private sector Importance of public sector

Improve timing Stability

Greater usage of money

Source: Hood 1991 and Hood and Jackson 1991

History of New Public Management

The first practices of New Public Management emerged in the United Kingdom
under the leadership of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher played the
functional role of “policy entrepreneur" and the official role of prime
minister. Thatcher drove changes in public management policy in such areas as
organizational methods, civil service, labor relations, expenditure planning,
financial management, audit, evaluation, and procurement. Thatcher's
successor, John Major, kept public management policy on the agenda of the
Conservative government, leading to the implementation of the Next Steps
Initiative. Major also launched the programs of the Citizens Charter Initiative,
Competing for Quality, Resource Accounting and Budgeting, and the Private
Finance Initiative.
A term was coined in the late 1980s to denote a new (or renewed) focus on the
importance of management and ‘production engineering’ in public service
delivery, which often linked to doctrines of economic rationalism (Hood 1989,
Pollitt 1993). During this timeframe public management became an active area
of policy-making in numerous other countries, notably in New Zealand,
Australia, and Sweden. At the same time, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) established its Public Management
Committee and Secretariat (PUMA), conferring to public management the
status normally accorded more conventional domains of policy. In the 1990s,
public management was a major item on President Clinton’s agenda. Early
policy actions of the Clinton administration included launching the National
Partnership and signing into law the Government Performance and Results Act.
Currently there are few indications that public management issues will vanish
from governmental policy agendas. A recent study showed that in Italy,
municipal directors are aware of a public administration now being oriented
toward new public management where they are assessed according to the results
they produce.

The term New Public Management (NPM) expresses the idea that the
cumulative flow of policy decisions over the past twenty years has amounted to
a substantial shift in the governance and management of the “state sector” in
the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia, and North America.
A benign interpretation is that these decisions have been a defensible, if
imperfect, response to policy problems. Those problems as well as their
solutions were formulated within the policy-making process. The agenda-setting
process has been heavily influenced by electoral commitments to improve
macro- economic performance and to contain growth in the public sector, as
well as by a growing perception of public bureaucracies as being inefficient.
The alternative-generation process has been heavily influenced by ideas coming
from economics and from various quarters within the field of management.

Although the origins of NPM came from Westernized countries it expanded to a

variety of other countries in the 1990s. Before the 1990s, NPM was largely
associated to an idea utilized by developed countries that are particularly Anglo-
Saxon. However the 1990s have seen countries in Africa, Asia and other
countries looking into using this method. In Africa, downsizing and decrease of
user fees have been widely introduced. These autonomous agencies within the
public sectors have been established in these areas. Performance contracting
became a common policy in crisis states worldwide. Contracting out of this
magnitude can be used to do things such as waste management, cleaning,
laundry, catering and road maintenance.

NPM was accepted as the "gold standard for administrative reform"in the
1990s. The idea for using this method for government reform was that if the
government guided private-sector principles were used rather than rigid
hierarchical bureaucracy, it would work more efficiently. NPM promotes a shift
from bureaucratic administration to business-like professional management.
NPM was cited as the solution for management ills in various organizational
context and policy making in education and health care reform.

The Principles of New Public Management

The basic principles of NPM are can best be described when split into seven
different aspects elaborated by Christopher Hood in 1991. Hood also invented
the term NPM itself. They are the following:
Management
Because of its belief in the importance and strength of privatizing government,
it is critical to have an emphasis on management by engaging in hands-on
methods. This theory allows leaders the freedom to manage freely and open up
discretion.
Performance standards
It’s important to maintain explicit standards and measures of performance in a
workforce. Using this method promotes clarification of goals/intent, targets, and
indicators for progression.
Output controls
The third point acknowledges the shift from the use of input controls and
bureaucratic procedures to rules relying on output controls measured by
quantitative performance indicators. This aspect requires using performance
based assessments when looking to outsource work to private
companies/groups.
Decentralization
NPM advocates often shifted from a unified management system to a
decentralized system in which managers gain flexibility and are not limited to
agency restrictions.
Competition
This characteristic focuses on how NPM can promote competition in the public
sector which could in turn lower cost, eliminate debate and possibly achieve a
higher quality of progress/work through the term contacts. Competition can also
be found when the government offers contracts to the private sectors and the
contract is given in terms of the ability to deliver the service effectively, quality
of the goods provided, hence this will increase competition because the other
private sector which did not get the contract will make strides to improve the
quality and ability thereby facilitating competition.

Private-sector management
This aspect focuses on the necessity to establish short-term labor contracts,
develop corporate plans or business plans, performance agreements and mission
statements. It also focuses on establishing a workplace in which public
employees or contractors are aware of the goals and intention that agencies are
trying to reach.
Cost reduction
The most effective one which has led to its ascent into global popularity focuses
on keeping cost low and efficiency high. Doing more with less moreover cost
reduction stimulates efficiency and is one way which makes it different from the
traditional approach of management.

Theoretical Basis New Public Management

The theoretical basis of New Public Management describes the characteristics
of New Public Management (NPM) and gives a cursory overview of the
development of the behavioral-administrative sciences and their relation to
NPM. A descriptive model of the behavioral-administrative sciences is
developed that pits three internally consistent scientific worldviews that are
incommensurable to each other. From this, the theoretical origins of NPM can
be traced to a variety of theoretical perspectives. Although the special mix of
characteristics of NPM is new, it does not represent a paradigm change. Indeed,
it is improbable that there will ever be one paradigm for the behavioral–
administrative sciences; and without an accepted paradigm, a paradigm change
is not really possible.

The conventional wisdom holds that NPM has its origins in public-choice
theory and managerialism (Aucoin, 1990, pp. 115; Dunsire, 1995, pp. 21–29;
Lueder, 1996, pp. 93; Naschold et al., 1995, pp. 1–8; Reichard, 1996, p. 245f;
Schedler, 1995, p. 155). Does this formula fit, and is it exhaustive? Moreover, is
NPM really new? Finally, does NPM represent a paradigm change, as some
writers claim (Aucoin, 1995, p. 3; Borins, 1994, p. 2; Kamensky, 1996, p. 250;
OECD, 1995, pp. 8, 25; Osborne and Gaebler, 1993, p. 321; Reinermann, 1995,
p. 6)? To answer these questions, describe the development of administrative
thought in the U.S., the home of public-choice theory and managerialism, focus
on the U.S. because it dominates theoretical developments in the behavioral-
administrative sciences, owing in part to the sheer size of its academic
establishment, its diversity, and the richness of its approaches. On the
presumption that the attempts of practitioners, consultants, and scientists is to
reform administrative organizations and delivery systems are influenced by their
disciplinary socialization and training, this survey will examine whether
theoretical concepts other than public choice and managerialism have
influenced NPM.

In the Progressive movement, the New York Bureau for Municipal Research
was a key player. Influenced by Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, the
New York Bureau believed that efficiency was the best solution to the problem
of corruption and incompetence. These progressive reformers imported
techniques and studies from scientific management (e.g., on efficient street
paving and snow removal). They were the first to use performance indicators to
benchmark the efficiency of public organizations, one purpose of which was to
identify corruption (Schachter, 1989). In the 1920s, some practitioners and
academics created the science of public administration on the fundamentals of
the progressive reform successes—particularly the presupposition of loyal
bureaucrats, honest politicians, and the politics-administration dichotomy.
These reformers—the new scientists of public administration—built a theory of
organization that they supplemented with the concept of management. These
principles were:
 a. The principle of division of work and specialization.
b. The principle of homogeneity.
c. The principle of unity of command.
d. The principle of hierarchy with respect to the delegation of
authority.
e. The principle of accountability.
f. The principle of span of control.
g. The staff principle (Gulick, 1937; Urwick, 1937; Mooney, 1937;
Graicunas, 1937).

Criticisms of New Public Management

There are blurred lines between policymaking and providing services in the
New Public Management system. Questions have been raised about the
potential politicization of the public service, when executives are hired on
contract under pay-for-performance systems. There are concerns that public
managers may move away from trying to meet citizens' needs. NPM brings to
question integrity and compliance when dealing with incentives for public
managers. Questions such as managers being more or less faithful arise. The
public interest is at risk and could undermine the trust in government.
Accountability can be a big issue.

Although NPM had a dramatic impact in the 1990s on managing and

policymaking, many scholars believe that NPM has hit its prime. Scholars like
Frank Dunleavy believe New Public Management is phasing out because of
disconnect with “customers” and their institutions. Scholars cite the Digital Era
and the new importance of technology that kills the necessity of NPM. In
countries that are less industrialized, the NPM concept is still growing and
spreading. This trend has much to do with a country's ability or inability to get
their public sector in tune with the Digital Era. New Public Management was
created in the Public Sector to create change based on: disaggregation,
competition, and incentives. Using incentives to produce the maximum services
from an organization is largely stalled in many countries and being reversed
because of increased complexity.

In Post-NPM, many countries explored digital era governance (DEG). Dunleavy

believes this new way of governance should be heavily centered upon
information and technology. Technology will help re-integrate with
digitalization changes. Digital Era Governance provides a unique opportunity
for self- sustainability however; there are various factors that will determine
whether or not DEG can be implemented successfully. When countries have
proper technology, NPM simply can't compete very well with DEG. DEG does
an excellent job of making services more accurate, prompt and remove most
barriers and conflicts. DEG also can improve the service quality and provide
local access to outsourcers.
4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe New Public Management, its history,
principles, theory and criticism.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe New Public Management. In
addition, issues surrounding its history, principles, theory and criticisms were
treated.
Unit 4: Chinese Developing Bureaucracy

1.0Introduction
The focus of this unit is to describe the Chinese Developing Bureaucracy trace
its history, theory and criticism. This is to enable the learner overcome some
misconceptions and ambiguity surrounding the New Public Management arising
from the multicultural and multidisciplinary approaches to it. You are therefore,
expected to give the unit maximum attention it deserves.

Objectives
At the end of this unit, students should be able to;
1. Descibe Chinese Developing Bureaucracy,
2. Narrate Chinese central organization department, and
3. Explain communist bureaucracy and officials.

Main Contents

Description of Chinese Bureaucracy

Name chop mark is used instead of signature in China. The powerful State
Council is China's highest administrative body. It makes proposals to the
Standing Committee of the Politburo and takes care of the day-to-day
operations of the country. It is a huge bureaucracy controlled by the Communist
Party and headed by the Prime Minister. Through its hierarchy of ministries and
agencies, the State Council carries out the directives of the Politburo. Among
the agencies are the Ministry of Truth and a Department of Propaganda. The
bureaucracy is led by the party elite. Participation is limited to members of the
Communist Party. The Central Party School is the top training ground for
Communist Party bureaucrats. All the top leaders attended it.
During the Tang Dynasty (A.D. 618--907), there was one official for every
2,927 people. During the more recent Qin Dynasty (1644--1911), there was one
official for every 299 people. But in modern China, there are up to 50 million
officials, amounting to about one official for every 27 people. Its bureaucracy
certainly cannot complain about being understaffed.
John Lee wrote in Newsweek, while modern China is the most over governed
land in Asia, it is also one of the worst governed. Even as China has
decentralized and officials have multiplied, the country is not building the
institutions needed for better transparency and accountability. CCP's influence
over courts, bureaucracies, media, research institutions, and state-controlled
enterprises are well known. It's difficult to make CCP's local officials
accountable when Beijing relies on them to maintain the party's hold on power
in far-flung places. There are roughly 300 million government employees in
China. In recent years the central government has vowed to shrink the bloated
bureaucracy. They have laid off some people and reduced salaries yet many
people continue drawing substantial salaries at the taxpayers’ expense.

A great deal of time is taken up by sitting through lengthy meetings which

accomplish little and sifting through lengthy documents and paperwork that are
largely waste of time. In 2007, the State Council set limits on the lengths of
official meetings, speeches and documents. The bureaucracy is slowly
reforming and becoming more accountable. A health minister was fired for
mistakes made during the SARS crisis in 2003. This was seen as a sign that
leading bureaucrats were going to be held accountable for their actions.

Central Organization Department and the Communist Party

Bureaucracy

The Chinese government elite, which includes about 2,800 people at or above
director or vice minister level, in the government and military, is intensely
loyal.
The Central Organization Department is the party's vast and opaque human
resources agency. Andrew Higgins (2010): It has no public phone number, and
there is no sign on the huge building it occupies near Tiananmen Square.
Guardian of the party's personnel files, the department handles key personnel
decisions not only in the government bureaucracy but also in business, media,
the judiciary and even academia. Its deliberations are all secret.

If such a body existed in the United States, Richard McGregor (2010) wrote in
his book The Party it would oversee the appointment of the entire US cabinet,
state governors and their deputies, the mayors of major cities, the heads of all
federal regulatory agencies, the chief executives of GE, Exxon-Mobil, Wal-
Mart and about fifty of the remaining largest US companies, the justices of the
Supreme Court, the editors of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and
the Washington Post, the bosses of the TV networks and cable stations, the
presidents of Yale and Harvard and other big universities, and the heads of
think-tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation.

Economic policy and other important policies are still largely shaped by the
government's central planning agency, the National Development and Reform
Commission. Many think that policy could be shaped more effectively and
efficiently if the agency was stripped of some of its responsibilities. Foreign
policy is ultimately crafted not by the foreign ministry but the party's Central
Leading Group on Foreign Affairs, and that military matters are decided not by
the defense ministry but by the party's Central Military Commission. These and
other party groups meet in secret.

In The Party McGregor described the existence of a network of special

telephones known as "red machines," which sit on the desks of the party's most
important members. Connected to a closed and encrypted communications
system, they are China's version of the "vertushka" telephones that once formed
an umbilical cord of party power across the vast expanse of the Soviet empire.
All governments have their own secure communications systems. But China's
network links not just ministers and senior party apparatchiks but also the chief
executives of the biggest state-owned companies---businessmen who, to outside
eyes, look like exemplars of China's post-communist capitalism.
At the National People's Congress in 2008, China announced plans to
streamline its massive bureaucracy by merging some large ministries into
“super-ministries” covering areas such as transportation, social services,
environmental protection, housing and construction but not energy. The idea
was that with increased power, streamlining, and separation of regulation and
enforcement from policy the super ministries would make it harder for
provincial governments to ignore rules set in Beijing.

Administration in China
Governmental institutions below the central level are regulated by the
provisions of the State Constitution of 1982. These provisions are intended to
streamline the local state institutions and make them more efficient and more
responsive to grass-roots needs; to stimulate local initiative and creativity; to
restore prestige to the local authorities that had been seriously diminished
during the Cultural Revolution; and to aid local officials in their efforts to
organize and mobilize the masses. As with other major reforms undertaken after
1978, the principal motivation for the provisions was to provide better support
for the ongoing modernization program.

The state institutions below the national level were local people's congresses--
the NPC's local counterparts--whose functions and powers were exercised by
their standing committees at and above the county level when the congresses
were not in session. The standing committee was composed of a chairman, vice
chairmen, and members. The people's congresses also had permanent
committees that became involved in governmental policy affecting their areas
and their standing committees and the people's congresses held meetings every
other month to supervise provincial-level government activities. Peng Zhen
described the relationship between the NPC Standing Committee and the
standing committees at lower levels as "one of liaison, not of leadership."
Further, he stressed that the institution of standing committees was aimed at
transferring power to lower levels so as to tap the initiative of the localities for
the modernization drive.
The administrative arm of these people's congresses was the local people's
government. Its local organs were established at three levels: the provinces,
autonomous regions, and special municipalities; autonomous prefectures,
counties, autonomous counties (called banners in Nei Monggol Autonomous
Region (Inner Mongolia)), cities, and municipal districts; and, at the base of the
administrative hierarchy, administrative towns (xiang). The administrative
towns replaced people's communes as the basic level of administration.
Reform programs have brought the devolution of considerable decision-making
authority to the provincial and lower levels. Nevertheless, because of the
continued predominance of the fundamental principle of democratic centralism,
which is at the base of China's State Constitution, these lower levels are always
vulnerable to changes in direction and decisions originated at the central level of
government. In this respect, all local organs are essentially extensions of central
government authorities and thus are responsible to the "unified leadership" of
the central organs.

Chinese Communist Bureaucrats and Officials

The traditional Communist bureaucracy operates under a command system of

specified ranks called nomenklatura in which everyone knew his place, his role,
and what he was supposed to do, think and say. Bureaucrats have traditionally
been resistant to changes because in many cases change would make them
obsolete and unnecessary. Common terms used to describe Communist
members included appartchik, a petty bureaucrat; cadre, a group or a member
of a group of Communist loyalists; and commissar, a personnel officer
responsible for morale and discipline.
On the bureaucratic elite is the Communist Party, George Yeo, Singapore's
foreign minister, wrote in Global Viewpoint, when working properly the
mandarinate is meritocractic and imbued with a deep sense of responsible of the
whole country. Yeo told Global Viewpoint, although politics in China will
change radically as the country urbanizes the core principals of bureaucratic
elite holding the entire country together is not likely to change. Too many state
functions affecting the well-being of the country as whole require central
coordination. In its historical memory, a China divided always means chaos.

Describing a typical Communist official, Rudolph Cheleminski wrote in

Smithsonian, "Bright, confident, well-spoken but still bearing that indefinable
air of defensiveness when...encountering Westerners. Milling, ironical,
circumlocution with practiced rhetorical skill, prodding, rebutting when there
was no call for rebuttal, answering questions with questions, he fenced more
than he participated in an interview." The work load of some senior officials is
quite high. They have a responsibility to keep friends, colleagues, and investors
entertained in a punishing round of restaurants, karaoke bars and massage
parlors. [Sexton, 2010]

Chinese Cadre System

Communist officials are known as cadres. A cadre is defined by the Oxford
University Press Dictionary as “a small group of people trained for a particular
purpose or profession." High-level officials are sometimes referred to as
mandarins, a term used to describe elite bureaucrats in imperial times. Senior
cadres remain overwhelmingly male, but there is now a compulsory retirement
age and even (very low) quotas for women. The party and government cadre
(ganbu) system is the rough equivalent of the civil service system in many other
countries. The term cadre refers to a public official holding a responsible or
managerial position, usually full time, in party and government. A cadre may or
may not be a member of the CCP, although a person in a sensitive position
would almost certainly be a party member.

Bureaucrat Behavior in China

The Communist bureaucracy functions under many of the same principals of
the old imperial bureaucracy, namely operating under a rigid hierarchy and
acting to serve its own self-interests and unresponsive to the needs of the people
it supposed to serve. The bureaucracy in China has been described as a
“multiplicity of competing ministries and bureaucratic levels” defined by “the
constant distractions of interdepartmental buck-passing and turf wars." A
meritocracy it isn’t. Local officials are often promoted even though they have
miserable records. They often advance using “framing, fawning, stealing and
sneaking” and seeking their self-interest. Under ancient Chinese system of
patronage, which is still followed to some degree today, officials received
appointments from above in return for remuneration from below. And people
who collected taxes and other payments kept some for themselves and passed
on the rest to their superiors.

Bureaucrats have traditionally gone through great lengths to make sure they
didn't make any mistake or anger a superior. High-level officials make the
decisions behind the scenes and mid-level cadres carry out the
decisions. Chinese government official, according to the Times of London, fear
being sacked or jailed if they said anything deemed inappropriate to U.S.
officials. One civil servant told the Times, “The security people will study these
documents word by word, After all, that's their job, They already make a record
of anyone who meets with a U.S. diplomat and so they will be able to put
together the date in the cable with the date of the meeting and from the content
can easily identify anyone." One official was sent to jail for 10 years in 1992 for
revealing in advance the text of a speech by President Jiang Zemin to Hong
Kong reporters.
Many low-level Communist officials drive black Volkswagen Santanas. Often
they are among the worst drivers on the roads, in some cases producing gridlock
traffic jams with their impatience. High-level officials like to travel around
China with an entourage. In 2009, state media warned that growing competition
for government jobs appeared to have encouraged cheating in the civil service
entrance exam, with about 1,000 cheaters caught over a four month period.
Wang Yang, a Communist Party leader of Guangdong Province and a member
of the Politburo, is major proponent of what he calls “mind liberation”---the
process of opening of the bureaucracy to new ways of thinking.

Red Tape and Bribes in China

For non-Chinese things do not happen so quickly. It can take two years to
obtain permission from local authorities to buy the house and even then it can
take skill and guanxi to navigate the process and keeps it from going at en even
slower pace.
Some Chinese say that achieving success in China requires skill of navigating
through the messy tangle of governmental bodies---national, provincial, city,
county township, and even village and neighborhood---and dealing with a
certain amount murkiness and not asking a lot of unnecessary questions such as
where the money came from.
Opening a hotel in Shanghai requires the approval of 11 agencies, including the
police, the fire department and various business licensing bureaus and foreign
enterprise offices. Sometimes navigating through the bureaucracy requires
proceeding in a step by step fashion from one agency to another but more often
means being bounced back and forth between agencies. Foreign businessmen
often have to hire dozen or more Chinese to help get through the maze.
Small companies can avoid a $1,400 tax by paying a $140 bribe Mark Magnier
wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Executive say government and party officials
demand payments and abuse their power to award contracts and issue permits.
Companies that lowball or otherwise anger officials learn quickly that the most
routine inspection can turn into a nightmare...Though cash is straightforward,
executives said gifts of department store and restaurant vouchers are more
 difficult to trace, as are artwork and stock, paid “study” trips, prostitutes or
paying overseas tuition of officials’ children."
Once in Nanjing, a 1,000-ton shipment of steel passed through 83 different
government work units and companies before it was delivered. The steel was
bought and sold 232 times over several months, increasing the price by 300
percent.
Foreign companies are often restricted from hiring and firing who they want
and often they are forced to hire Chinese employees on the basis of their
connection not their skills. Simple things such as getting a land-line telephone
installed and renting some property can be incredible hassles. Patience is helpful
but probably the most important thing to have to get things done
is guanxi (connections).
Former Shanghai mayor and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji has been nicknamed
Mr. One Chop because of efforts to reduce the number of chops or signatures on
permits and bureaucratic documents. In a speech in March 2004, Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao promised to cut red tape for entrepreneurs.

4.0Conclusion
In this unit, attempt was made to describe Chinese Developing Bureaucracy, its
central organization, its administration and the impact of communist party.

5.0 Summary
In this unit, attempt has been made to describe Chinese Developing
Bureaucracy. In addition, issues surrounding its central organization
department, its administration and communist bureaucracy and officials.