HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

CO-ORDINATION IN
ADMINISTRATION
SUBJECT: PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION SUBMITTED BY:
AMAN SHARMA SUBMITTED TO: Dr.
VED PRAKASH SHARMA ENROL. NO.:
1020171820 B.A.LL.B (HONS.)- IV
SEMESTER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Every project big or small is successful largely due to the efforts of a number of wonderful
people who have always given their valuable advice or lent a helping hand. I sincerely
appreciate the inspiration, support and guidance of all those people who have been instrumental
in making this project a success.

1
I, AMAN SHARMA, the student of H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (SHIMLA),
am extremely grateful to H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY (SHIMLA), for the
confidence bestowed in me and entrusting my ability.

At this juncture I feel deeply honored in expressing my sincere thanks to honorable vice
chancellor, Prof. Dr. Nishtha Jaswal, for making the resources available at the right time and
providing valuable insights leading to the successful completion of my assignment.

I also extend my gratitude to my project guide, Dr. VED PRAKASH SHARMA, who assisted
me in compiling the project.

I would also like to thank all the faculty members of H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
(SHIMLA), for their critical advice and guidance without which this project would not have
been possible Last but not the least I place a deep sense of gratitude to my family members and
my friends who have been a constant source of inspiration during the preparation of this project.

AMAN SHARMA

INDEX DEFINITION AND NATURE OF CO-ORDINATION ..............Error!

Bookmark not defined.

FEATURES OF CO-ORDINATION ................................................................... 4

TYPOLOGIES ...................................................................................................... 5

CLASSIFICATION OF CO-ORDINATION ....................................................... 6

IMPORTANCE OF CO-ORDINATION ............................................................. 7

2
TECHNIQUES ..................................................................................................... 8

THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION .................................................................... 8

LIMITS AND HINDRANCES........................................................................... 10

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 11

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 12

DEFINITION AND NATURE OF CO-ORDINATION

Co-ordination is the unification, integration, synchronization of the efforts of group members
so as to provide unity of action in the pursuit of common goals. It is a hidden force which binds
all the other functions of management. In public administration coordination is regarded as a
very important principle. It is also considered as a concept.

According to Mooney and Reelay, “Co-ordination is orderly arrangement of group efforts to

provide unity of action in the pursuit of common goals”.

According to Charles Worth, “Co-ordination is the integration of several parts into an orderly
hole to achieve the purpose of understanding”.

According to G.R. Terry, “Co-ordination is the adjustments of the parts to each other and of the
movement and operation of parts in time so that each can make its maximum contribution to
the product of the whole”.

According to Dimock and Dimock, “Coordination is placing many aspects of an enterprise in

proper position relative to each other and to the programme to which they are a part; it is
harmoniously containing agents and functions towards the achievement of desired goal”.

The above definitions make it clear that coordination is much more than cooperation.
According to Terry coordination is synchronization of efforts. While cooperation is the
collective action of one person with another or others towards a common goal

Every enterprise or business organisation has various aspects or sections and each is entrusted
with a particular job or responsibility. But this diversification or balkanisation does not deny
the fact that all the sections are crucial to the whole organisation. Every part of the enterprise
aims at the attainment of the general purpose and, if so, there must exist give-and-take policy

3
among all parts. This is called coordination. Coordination thus implies that no part of the
enterprise is completely unrelated with other parts.

Management seeks to achieve co-ordination through its basic functions of planning, organizing,
staffing, directing and controlling. That is why, co-ordination is not a separate function of
management because achieving of harmony between individuals efforts towards achievement
of group goals is a key to success of management. Co-ordination is the essence of management
and is implicit and inherent in all functions of management.

A manager can be compared to an orchestra conductor since both of them have to create rhythm
and unity in the activities of group members. Co-ordination is an integral element or ingredient
of all the managerial functions as discussed below: -

a. Co-ordination through Planning - Planning facilitates co-ordination by integrating

the various plans through mutual discussion, exchange of ideas. e.g. - co-ordination
between finance budget and purchases budget.
b. Co-ordination through Organizing - Mooney considers co-ordination as the very
essence of organizing. In fact when a manager groups and assigns various activities to
subordinates, and when he creates department’s co-ordination uppermost in his mind.
c. Co-ordination through Staffing - A manager should bear in mind that the right no. of
personnel in various positions with right type of education and skills are taken which
will ensure right men on the right job.
d. Co-ordination through Directing - The purpose of giving orders, instructions &
guidance to the subordinates is served only when there is a harmony between superiors
& subordinates.
e. Co-ordination through Controlling - Manager ensures that there should be
coordination between actual performance & standard performance to achieve
organizational goals.

From above discussion, we can very much affirm that co-ordination is the very much essence
of management. It is required in each & every function and at each & every stage & therefore
it cannot be separated.

4
FEATURES OF CO-ORDINATION

(1) Coordination is an essential aspect of any organisation-big and small. Especially the
large organisation with several departments or sections cannot work satisfactorily without this.
(2) In every modern public administration control is essential. The departments cannot
function whimsically. They must follow certain regulations and this ensures coordination. Let
us see what Dimock and Dimock say in this regard “Control is the analytical method by which
the blend is regularly tested and evaluated: Coordination and control close the circle in the
administrative process Both Dimock and Dimock say that organisation, control and
coordination all must be viewed simultaneously.
(3) The concept of coordination comes from the idea of interdependence of different
branches of the organisation. No organisation of modern world can expect to be a single unit.
Naturally the division of the organisation into sections is indispensable, so also the
coordination.

(4) Some well-known public administrationists now-a-days have started to talk about
functional coordination which means that in a big organisation there are number of sections,
but in view of importance, all are not in the same level some are more important than others.
That is why more important departments are put under one umbrella and the purpose of such
step is to achieve functional coordination. In recent years, this form of coordination has gained
immense popularity.

(5) Decentralisation is a related term of coordination. In organisation or a government’s

administrative system, powers are decentralised for the purpose of better management. In the
same line of thought the specialists have suggested about decentralisation. So far as this
principle is concerned both are different, but their purpose is more or less the same. Both must
be related with each other. The decentralised parts must be brought under coordination.

(6) Some experts say that the principle of coordination must always see that the aim of the
organisation is not adversely affected. The coordination must always take it into account. If it
is found that the main purpose of the organisation is going to be badly affected if coordination
is strictly adhered to and in that case the principle of coordination is to be sacrificed at least
temporarily. About this principle the valued judgement of the experts is caution and
farsightedness must be applied before taking any final decision.

5
TYPOLOGIES

Coordination in organized institutions is classified as-

• Internal and external

• Horizontal and perpendicular
• Procedural and substantive

Internal coordination deals with coordinating the individual activities of persons working in an
organisation. It is also known as functional coordination. External coordination deals with
coordinating the activities of various organizational units, it is also known as structural
coordination.

Horizontal and Perpendicular Horizontal coordination deals with the coordination between one
section and another, one branch and another, one division and another or one department and
another. Perpendicular coordination deals with the coordination between an officer and his
employee, a branch and a division, and a division and department.

Procedural and Substantive- This typology is given by Professor H. A. Simon. Procedural

coordination is exemplified by the structure of the organisation itself that defines the pattern of
formal relations among its members. The substantive coordination, on the other hand, is
concerned with the content of the activities of the organisation

CLASSIFICATION OF CO-ORDINATION
Peter Self thinks that in modern organisational system decentralisation of power and functions
and coordination among them are not to be treated as last words. Coordination is handicapped
by some notions or practical situations and one such practical situation is the existence of
“overhead units”. Peter Self defines the term in the following language: The overhead units
“are not dedicated to the same view of social task as the operating agency but are concerned
with the application of some specialised skill to a particular service or with organisational
maintenance or policy coordination”. So the fact is that all the organisations are not in a position
to divide the functions into various parts. Some organisations perform peculiar or specialised
tasks and in those cases there is a tendency of centralisation.

Peter Self, however, has divided the coordination into the following categories:

6
In the first place, there is policy coordination. Some organisations have their own philosophy
or ideal objective and, in this case, when a policy is adopted, it is implemented in an almost
centralised way. Naturally the scope of coordination here is very limited. Only very few
departments are concerned with the making and execution of the policy. The principle of
coordination is confined within a few departments. Peter Self calls it Policy Coordination. The
decision or policymaking process is limited within a few departments. Hence the scope of
coordination is not wide.

Another type of coordination is resource coordination. For development and planning purposes
resources are to be collected and a particular department cannot do this task. Several
departments of government are involved and for that reason a coordination among all the
departments is indispensable. Peter Self says that necessary coordination and relationship with
the non-governmental organisation are to be set-up. This requires another type of coordination
and this to be studied with special care.

Peter Self’s final type of coordination is technical cooperation. In this age of advanced
technology every organisation always tries to adopt most modern technology and this
application of higher technology is spread over a number of departments. This is inevitable and
also inevitable is coordination among various departments applying technology.

Peter Self calls this technical coordination. He also says that an organisation deals with legal,
purchasing medical, statistical, operational research and many other complicated issues. A co-
ordination is required for all the departments. For such an organisation coordination is essential.

Peter Self says that the structure and functions of modern organisation are so complex that
division of task and responsibilities does not always work satisfactorily. Rather, centralisation
appears to be satisfactory. For example, data collection and technical activities cannot be spread
over a number of departments.

The aim of the organisation will be better served if these are confined within one centre or
department. The chief executive will not make any attempt for decentralisation and then
coordination. The consequence is centralisation is strongly favoured. He further observes:
“The wishes of the public employees for more equality of treatment over pay-scales and career
opportunities strengthens the centralisation of personnel management … these pressures of
centralisation run throughout the administrative system”.

7
IMPORTANCE OF CO-ORDINATION
Coordination is essential for smooth and successful function of organisation due to the
following reasons.

a. To avoid conflicts and duplication of work in the functioning of organisation. This ensures
economy of expenditure.

b. To curtail the tendency among employees to attach too much significance to their own work
and de-emphasise others work.

c. To prevent the tendency of empire-building, that is, expansion of one’s own activities to gain
more power.

d. To check the narrow perspective of specialists who engage in different and specific aspects
of work.

e. To meet the requirements of growing number of organisations units.

TECHNIQUES

Following are the techniques or means of coordination

• Planning (the most important means of coordination)

• Institutional devices or organisational devices like inter-departmental meetings, conferences,

committees, staff units, coordinating officers, and so on.

• Standardization of procedures and methods like forms, manuals, regulations

• Centralization house-keeping agencies like Director-General of Supplies, Central Public

Works Department, and so on

• Verbal and written communications\inculcation of institutional spirit among the employees

Consultations, references and clearance, like with Finance Ministry

• Organisational hierarchy or scalar chain which, according to Mooney, constitutes the

universal process of coordination

• In addition to the above formal means, there are various informal means of coordination like
personal contacts, dinners, cocktail parties, party system, and others.

8
THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION

Various scholars, writers and contributions:

Luther Gulick: he felt that coordination becomes mandatory when sub – division of work is
inescapable. According to him, coordination means interrelating the various parts of the work.
He opined that size and time are the great limiting factors in the development of coordination.
Hence, he stated that coordination is not something that develops by accident. It must be won
by intelligent, vigorous, persistent and organized effort. The following are Gulick’s two
primary ways of achieving coordination:

• Organisation, that is, interrelating to parts of work through organizational hierarchy.

• Dominance of an idea that is development of a common objective in the minds of the
people working together in the organisation.

M. P. Follet: Follet viewed coordination as the core of management. According to her,

coordination means harmonious ordering of parts. She emphasized the following four facets of
coordination-

i. Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all factors in a situation and taking into
account also the interrelationships themselves.

ii. Coordination by direct contact irrespective of one’s position in organizational

hierarchy. iii. Coordination in the early stages, that is, involving the concerned people in the
policy – making stage itself.

iv. Coordination as a continuing process, that is, from planning to activity, and from activity to
further planning.

J. D. Thompson: He identified the following three kinds of interdependencies in organisation;

i. Pooled interdependence, that is, an organisation, according to Thompson, may have

various fairly autonomous units but the entire organizational functioning depends on the overall
performance of such units.

9
ii. Sequential interdependence, that is, the units of an organisation are organised in such a
way that the output of one unit become the input for the second unit.

iii. Reciprocal interdependence, that is, the units of an organisation are so organised that
the outputs of each unit become inputs for the other units. Thompson also suggested the
following three kinds of coordinating techniques to match the above three types of
interdependencies. i. Standardization ii. Coordination by plan iii. Coordination by mutual
adjustments.

Harlan Cleveland: his tension theory suggests that in an organisation there must be deliberate
planning to create conflicts in jurisdiction and programme of various units. Such conflicts in
the administration focus the issues related to public interest which, otherwise, would be
overridden. Thus, he opposed the structuring of an organisation to attain complete coordination
to ensure smoothness in function.

MacFarland: He suggested four ways of achieving coordination:

i. Clarifying authority and responsibility. ii.

Checking and observation.
iii. Facilitating effective communication, and iv.
Coordination through leadership.

LIMITS OR HINDRANCES

According to Luther Gulick, the following factors limit the achievement of coordination.

• Uncertainty of the future behaviour of individuals and of group.

• Lack of knowledge, experience, wisdom and character among leaders and their
confused and conflicting ideas and objectives.
• Lack of administrative skills and techniques.
• The vast number of variables involved ,
• and the incompleteness of human knowledge, particularly related to men and life\lack
of proper methods for developing, considering, perfecting, and adopting new ideas and
programmes.

10
 Seckler – Hudson included the following hindrances-

• Enormous growth in size and complexity of public administration.

• Personalities and political factors.
• Lack of leaders with wisdom and knowledge pertaining to public administration.
• The accelerated expansion of public administration to international dimension.

CONCLUSION
From the close study of this basic concept and principle, the various above definitions make its
clear that coordination is much more than cooperation. And according to G. R. Terry,
Coordination is synchronization of efforts while cooperation is the collective action of one
person with another or other person towards a common goal or object.

Coordination is a fundamental problem for public administration and policy. It has been
recognized as an issue in government for centuries, but continues to vex individuals who
attempt to make government work better. Despite numerous attempts to make public
organizations work together more effectively, there is still no standardized method for
approaching coordination issues, and much of the success or failure of attempts to coordinate
appears to depend upon context. Hierarchical methods for coordination may work in some
settings but not in others, and that is true for all the options available.

And just as the instruments for addressing coordination problems need to be matched to
circumstances, so too does the need to coordinate differ across countries and across policy
areas. Some policy domains may work well with minimal attempts to coordinate with others,
but others may require substantial policy integration and coordination. Likewise, political
systems may emphasize coordination and government more strongly than do others.

The practical issues for producing coordination are troublesome, but the normative issues
involved may be even more difficult. How much effort should be invested in attempting to
create coordination, and in what circumstances? Can the resources be better used to deliver the
services rather than coordinate them? Although much of the literature on policy coordination
treats better coordinated programs this as an unalloyed virtue, in the real world of governing
some balancing may be required. The appropriate balance will depend upon a number of
factors, but political and professional judgments are required to make the correct decision on
coordination.

11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]. J. E. Anderson, Public policy – making, New York: Holt, Rinechart and Winston, 2nd
edition, 1979.

[2]. J. J. N. Cloete, Introduction to Public Administration, Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik, 1984. [3].
T. R. Dye, Understanding public policy administration: Pretoria; J. L. van Schaik, 1978 [4]. W.
Fox and Ivan H. Meyer: Public administration to public administration: 2nd edition: Staples
Press, Limited, London, 1966.

[5]. E. N. Gladden: An introduction to public administration; 2nd edition: Staples Press,

Limited, London, 1966.

[6]. E. N. Gladden: The essentials of public administration: London Staple Press, 1972.

[7]. R. A. Goldwin (ed) Bureaucrats, public analysis, statesmen; who leads? Washington, D. C.
1980

12