Mpa - 102

MPA-102/OSOU
MPA-102/OSOU
SEMESTER – 1
COURSE CODE – MPA – 102
TITLE : ADMINISTRATIVE THINKERS
BRIEF CONTENT
Block Block Name Unit Unit

No. No.
1 Kautilya & Woodrow Wilson
2 FW Taylor & Henry Fayol
Classical
Thinkers 3 Karl Marx & Max Weber
1
4 Luther Gullick & Lyndall Urwick

No. No.
5 Elton Mayo
Neo-Classical 6 M.P. Follet

2 Thinkers
7 Chester Barnard
8 Chris Argyris
MPA-102/OSOU

No. No.
Modern 9 A.H. Maslow
Thinkers
10 Frederick Herzberg
3
11 D. McGregor
12 Herbert Simon

No. No.
Modern 13 Peter Drucker
Thinkers Of
21st Century
4 14 Fred.W.Riggs
15 Rensis Likert
16 Dwight Waldo
MPA-102/OSOU
EXPERT COMMITTEE
Prof. Swarnamayee Tripathy Prof. Shyama Prasad Guru (Member)
(Chairperson) - Former (Prof.), PG - Former (Prof.), PG Dept. of Political
Dept. of Public Administration, Utkal Science and Public Administration,
University. Sambalpur University
Prof. Srinibas Pathi (Member) - Prof. Prof. Amiya Paricha (Member)-

PG Dept. of Public Administration, Former (Prof.), PG Dept. of Political
Mizoram Central University (Aizwal) Science, Berhampur University
This Study Material has been developed by Odisha State Open

University (OSOU), Sambalpur
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The University acknowledges the contributions made by the content developers, writers and
editors of this SLM.
Acknowledgment is also due to the following: e-PG Pathshala
MATERIAL PRODUCTION
Registrar
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur
(cc) OSOU,2022. Administrative Thinkers made available under a
Creative Commons Attribution – Share Alike 4.0
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0
Printed by:
MPA-102/OSOU
CONTENTS
Blocks /Units Page No.

Block-1 Classical Thinkers 1-74
Unit-1: Kautilya & Woodrow Wilson
Unit-2: FW Taylor & Henry Fayol
Unit-3: Karl Marx & Max Weber
Unit-4: Luther Gullick & Lyndall Urwick
Block- 2 Neo-Classical Thinkers 75 - 111
Unit-5: Elton Mayo
Unit-6: M.P. Follet
Unit-7: Chester Barnard
Unit-8: Chris Argyris
Block- 3 Modern Thinkers 112 - 168
Unit-9: A.H. Maslow
Unit-10: Frederick Herzberg
Unit-11: D. McGregor
Unit-12: Herbert Simon

MPA-102/OSOU
Block- 4 Modern Thinkers of 21st Century 169 - 220

Unit-13: Peter Drucker
Unit-14: Fred.W.Riggs
Unit-15: Rensis Likert
Unit-16: Dwight Waldo

MPA-102/OSOU
Block-1
Classical Thinkers
Unit-1: Kautilya & Woodrow Wilson
Unit-2: FW Taylor & Henry Fayol
Unit-3: Karl Marx & Max Weber
Unit-4: Luther Gullick & Lyndall Urwick

MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-1: KAUTILYA AND WOODROW WILSON
Structure:
1.0 Learning Outcomes
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Outlining Kautilya’s Arthashastra

1.3 Kautilya’s Administrative Thought
1.3.1 Establishment of Welfare State
1.3.2 The Saptang Doctrine of State
1.3.3 Mandal and Shadgunya Doctrines
1.3.4 Efficient Administrative System and Organized Personnel Administration
1.3.5 Criminal Justice Administration
1.4 Kautilya’s Critical Appraisal
1.5 Woodrow Wilson’s Life and Works
1.6 Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative Thought
1.6.1 Science of Administration
1.6.2 Evolution of the Study of Administration
1.6.3 Dichotomy between Politics and Administration
1.6.4 Public Opinion and Administration
1.6.5 Comparative Methods
1.7 Woodrow Wilson’s Critical Appraisal
1.8 Activities
1.9 References and Further Readings
1.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES
When we talk about the roots of the discipline of Public Administration there are two
names. The learners are able to achieve the following:
● Knowledge and understanding of the major enunciations made by Kautilya and
Thomas Woodrow Wilson to the realm of Public Administration.
● Develop an appreciation of Kautilya and Woodrow Wilson's contribution to
Administrative Thought.
● Ability to objectively assess the relevance of Kautilya and Woodrow Wilson's
contribution to the discipline of Public Administration.
1
MPA-102/OSOU
1.1INTRODUCTION
When we talk about the roots of the discipline of Public Administration there are two
names which immediately cross our minds, though in different contexts, Kautilya and
Woodrow Wilson. The evolution of Indian Administration in an organized and principled
manner is uncontestably credited to Kautilya, whereas tracing the evolution of Public
Administration as a discipline in the modern era take us to the contribution of Woodrow
Wilson this unit will open up on the administrative thought for training to both these
legendary administrative thinkers and practices in their own respective eras.
1.2 OUTLINING KAUTILYA'S ARTHASHASTRA
A great Indian scholar Kautilya, as documented variedly was born in 325 BC possibly
in the Magadh Mahajanapada of ancient India and is most vividly remembered for his mega
treatise Arthashastra which is the famous elaborate manifestation of the different dimensions
of a kingdom's polity and its related affairs. As such known by two other names Vishnu
Gupta and Chanakya, the great scholar of scriptures and weaponry is more famously referred
to as Kautilya. It was due to his vision and guidance and the efforts of his disciple
Chandragupta Maurya that the Maurya Kingdom was established and flourished as an
epitome of good governance. Kautilya's Arthashastra divided into 15 books goes on to
describe political science, economics, philosophy, niti shastra, sociology, education, military
science, chemistry, engineering, geology, administration and many more other aspects of the
then times. It elaborates in much detail on all the important aspects of Statecraft. It is
considered to be both an analytical and perspective document revealing both the aims and
objectives of the state as well as the practical means by which they can be achieved.
The treatise mainly discusses three aspects of the science of Public Administration
namely the principles of Public Administration, the government machinery (related to
monarch) and personnel management (both higher and lower-level functionaries), however,
the principles have only been implied in different parts and not been explicitly dealt with. Out
of all the books in which Arthashastra is divided; the books relevant to the study of Public
Administration are only four, namely the first, the second, the fifth and the sixth. The
principles of Public Administration implied in Arthashastra do not command as much
attention as does the government machinery for two major reasons, one they are indirectly
stated and two, the principles governing the democratic Public Administration are way
different from the principles underlying a monarchical public administrative system as
portrayed in Arthashastra. Kautilya does not deal with the science of Public Administration
which is of rather recent origin and instead talks about the science of polity which according
to him is the combination of the science of Wealth and the science of Government, thus
subsuming the science of Public Administration under the science of government.
2
MPA-102/OSOU
1.3 KAUTILYA’S ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT
In his mega treatise, Kautilya can be seen drawing a close connection between the art of
Public Administration and the science of Public Administration as it has been clearly and
frequently mentioned that an administrator must possess the knowledge of the science of
Public Administration and an administrator can be adept in the art of Public Administration
only if he is conversant with the science of Public Administration. The main administrative
thoughts propounded by him are as below:
1.3.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF WELFARE STATE
The prime focus of Kautilya's entire thought is on peoples' welfare and state's security.
Although Kautilya expresses explicitly on acquiring state, its expansion and advocating on a
despot rule so as to safeguard a state and its populace from enemies but peoples' welfare
forms his equal concern and preference. The various shlokas mentioned in Arthashastra
explicitly portray his principle as is manifested through a famous dictum within, "In the
happiness of his subjects lies his happiness, in their welfare his welfare; whatever pleases his
subjects he shall consider as good, but whatever pleases himself he shall not consider as
good." In the same context Kautilya suggests that 'the king should collect taxes in the same
way as the sun, taking water from the sea as vapours and returning it to the sea as rain'. He
has put public welfare as a necessary restriction on the state, in want of which the state is
bound to lose its relevance. Kautilya has anticipated the following public welfare activities
from the King:
1. Creation and regulation the livelihood means;

2. Construction of hospitals and dispensaries;
3. Developing agriculture (varta), animal husbandry, industry and commerce;
4. Extending help to widows, orphans, sick and deprived;
5. Providing protection to the ashram residents and students engaged in the pursuit of
knowledge;
6. Respect and assistance to scholars and distribution of land to them;
7. Helping in the accomplishment of the four Purusharthas (dharma, artha, kama and
moksha);
8. Allotment of cultivable land to the landless farmers;
9. Construction of dams, ponds and canals for agricultural development;
10. Increasing the revenue collection by levying additional tax on the rich people and to
distribute it among the poor people;
11. Making efforts for the development of arts and education; and
12. Arrangement for adequate care of pregnant women.
The welfare works of the state were varied and detailed, also including the state's
security, peace and order, protection of the subjects, livestock development, development of
forests, mines and industries and socio cultural, educational and philanthropic work.
3
MPA-102/OSOU
1.3.2 THE SAPTANG DOCTRINE OF STATE
Kautilya has considered the principle of social agreement or a kind of contract being
responsible for the origin of the state, implying that in order to avoid the atrocities inflicted
by cruel and stronger people, the common man has obtained the promise of his security by
paying taxes to the king. It is similar to the principle of social contract that was explained by
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau regarding the origin of the institution of state. The ancient
Indian thinkers conceived the state as a human body and have described it to be divided into
seven organs, as in Shukraniti. Similarly, Kautilya also described the state to be divided into
Sapta Prakritis or Saptang, i.e. seven organs of body, namely Swami (king), Amatya
(minister), Janapada (people and land together), Durga (fort), Kosha (treasury), Danda
(army) and Mitra (friends).
Considering Swami or King to be sovereign, Kautilya has described him to be the

guardian of common interests, promoter of religion and regulator of law, thereby portraying
King to be Rajarshi who is supposed to possess the virtues of a guardian, wisdom, enthusiasm
and self-sustenance, all to be essentially inculcated and developed by means of necessary
education. Kautilya has made a detailed provision to extend sovereignty, all executive
powers, seat of law and justice, and military powers to the king. Kautilya suggests setting up
industries, performing sacrifices (yajnas), determining behavior, offering dakshina and
establishing discipline are also the main duties of the king. Generally, the king of Kautilya
appears autocratic and despot but Kautilya has erected some moral limitations for the king by
way of education, strict routine, taxation with prior approval from the public, consultation
with Brahmins and priests, constitution of the Council of Ministers and justice in consonance
of the rule of law.
In the form of Amatya, Kautilya has given the status of minister and administrative
officer to another organ of the state, entrusting him with the responsibilities of the
accomplishments of the janapada, state's security, crisis management, military arrangement,
accounting of income and expenditure, suppression of enemies, development of uninhabited
land, punishment to criminals, external affairs and protection of princes etc. In order to fulfill
the role of Amatya, the king is expected to appoint only a highly qualified person to the post.
Individual as well as collective responsibility has been ascertained for the ministers by
Kautilya.
Attaching huge importance to the Janapada i.e., the people and the land, Kautilya calls
it a necessary element for the existence of a state. He holds the opinion that the state should
expand the settlements either by increasing the population of their country or by inviting
people from other countries. The Janapadas should be established in areas abundant in
natural resources like rivers, ponds, forests, mountains, agricultural produce etc. with a good
climate and rich trade, forest inhabiting a lot of elephants for strong army, weak neighboring
kings, virtuous people residing and suitably fortified. Although Kautilya was in favor of
centralized rule with the king as pivot, administratively, he desired for the division of state
4
MPA-102/OSOU
into four parts which in turn indicated his inclination for decentralization and autonomy at the
same time.
The Durga or fort as a symbol of defense and attacking power of the state, Kautilya has
advised that the king should build battle-appropriate forts in all directions of his janapada.
Kautilya has highlighted four types of forts such as island like fort, hill fort, fort in barren
land and fort in marshy and bushy region. The fort provides shelter to the king in times of
crisis and also houses arrangements for military and allied forces. Kautilya believed that
whether there is war or not, the king should always remain prepared for war and therefore,
forts become yet more relevant.
Kautilya has given preference to Artha in Dharma, Artha and Kama saying that it is
impossible for a king to protect his land, army, subjects and regime without money. The king
should never allow the kosha or treasury to go empty because the army can only protect the
kosha, but the kosha protects both the army and the fort. Kautilya has suggested that king
needs to accumulate wealth in the treasury, both inherited from the ancestors and the one
received from the subjects through taxation. One-sixth of the grain from the subjects, one-
tenth of the trade and fiftieth of the profit earned from the trade of animals and gold should be
received by the king as tax; however, no tax should not be collected by causing wrong doings
or suffering, because collection of tax from disabled people can lead to discontent and
rebellion.
Danda or army have been considered of huge significance in the security of the state by
Kautilya and he suggested that the military men should be of suitable lineage, disciplined,
trained, brave, self-respecting, efficient and great patriot because even the enemies of the
king who has a strong military force become allies. The king should give proper salary to the
soldiers and take full care of the amenities of their families. Kautilya has described six types
of armies – civilian army, hired army, distant army, tribal army, allied army and foe army.
Elephantry, cavalry, chariot army and infantry have also been described by him with
elephantry being categorised as the best on the pretext that it proves to be most efficient and
effective in disintegrating enemy forces, forts, cantonments and arrays. Since Danda has
been portrayed as the symbol of authority and Dandaniti equated with Statecraft, therefore
danda or army is important in the power of the state, which protects life, liberty and property
by keeping people devoted to righteousness and productivity in the larger interest of the state.
About the seventh organ, Mitra (friends) Kautilya expresses that a king needs friends to
get help in times of crisis, therefore, they must belong to an appropriate clan, must be faithful,
permanent, like-minded and well-wisher. He believes that it is important for the king to tame
friends so that there is no possibility of opposition from them. A friend is an unsalaried
activist and also provides assistance through funds, land and army. Extending an ethical
lesson, Kautilya says - "Friendship is not permanent, only interests are permanent."
Kautilya, therefore, has discussed the Saptanga Siddhanta or the Sapta Prakritis quite
elaboratively.
5
MPA-102/OSOU
1.3.3 MANDAL AND SHADGUNYA DOCTRINES
This ancient theory prevalent since Rig-Veda times and known with different names
like Digvijay doctrine in King Rama's regime was based on the premise the primary enemy
lies in the neighborhood and enemy of enemy is friend. Mandala meaning circle of states was
used by Kautilya to project a geometrical layout of the then existing political realities in the
contextual backdrop of international relations. Kautilya in his Arthashastra, the first ever
treatise on diplomatic practices, evolved a comprehensive theory for the purpose of state's
security and survival. For him, power and success are interrelated, therefore power
acquisition and expansion is the main aim of any state fetching intellectual, physical and
physiological success.
As regards international relations, Kautilya gave importance to geography and

economic foundations of a state as the necessary determinants. A centralized government set-
up possessing control over far-flung areas was not possible in ancient India due to the
obvious lack of advanced means of transport and communication. The prevalent scenario was
that of stronger states annexing the weaker ones in the neighborhood in order to expand their
kingdom and the weaker states agreed to pay tribute to the stronger ones so as to enjoy
independence. It is from this that Kautilya's strategy of six-fold foreign policy (Shadgunya
Siddhant) evolved which was to be applied as the situation demanded to subdue the natural
enemies in the form of neighbours: (i) Sandhi (treaty), (ii) Vigraha (break a treaty and start a
war), (iii) Asan (sit neutral in wait of opportune time), (iv)Yaan (mobilisation of troops), (v)
Samashraya (joining hand with those having similar aims), (vi) Dwaidibhava (dual strategy
of friendship with one enemy and enmity with the other).
The Mandal Doctrine explaining the ruling universe and the construction of a state
desirous of expansion or consolidation was central to Kautilya's foreign policy. It projects a
matrix comprising a maximum of 12 types of states and the probable ways of dealing with
each of them. The position of states as per the Mandal doctrine is thus:
● Vijigishu: The king who aspires to be the conqueror

● Ari: Shares border with Vijigishu, an enemy
● Mitra: Friend or an ally of Vijigishu, shares border with ari
● Ari-Mitra: Friend of ari, shares border with mitra
● Mitra-Mitra: Friend or an ally of friend
● Ari Mitra-Mitra: Friend of enemy’s friend
● Parshnigraha: Enemy in the rear of the Vijigishu
● Aakranda: Friend in the rear behind Parshnigraha
● Parshnigraha-asara: Friend of Parshnigraha behind Aakranda
● Aakranda-asara: Friend of Aakranda behind Parshnigrahasara
● Madhyama: Indifferent kingdom
● Udasina: Neutral Kingdom
The focal premise of the Mandala doctrine lies in locating the position of a kingdom as
an enemy or ally vis-a-vis the intending conqueror and the kingdom’s spatial placement in the
6
MPA-102/OSOU
Mandala. Here, it is important to note that in Mandal doctrine it is not essential for states to
have a geographically circular expanse; they may be placed linear as well. Kautilya treats the
vijigishu (the conqueror or the ambitious king) as the reference point of the mandala theory
and advocates four basic circles:
● Circle 1: Vijigishu, his friend, friend’s friend

● Circle 2: Ari (enemy of vijigishu), his friend, friend’s friend
● Circle 3: Madhyama (the indifferent king), his friend, friend’s friend
● Circle 4: udasina (the neutral king), his friend, friend’s friend
The Mandal system offers an ordering principle of states whereby it is argued that a
direct neighbor is an enemy (ari) while an indirect neighbor is a friend (mitra). As goes a
common saying – enemy of my enemy is one's friend. It has, therefore, been put forth by
Kautilya that the first and third circles would be hostile to the vijigishu state while second and
fourth would be friendly, this is not an iron law though and exceptions would always be
there. Nonetheless, the victor’s policy should be to turn as many of the kings as possible into
allies or take neutral positions.
Kautilya has stressed upon diplomatic manoeuvres and espionage activity. His
diplomacy emphasizes Sama (conciliation), Dama (appeasement), Danda (use of force) and
Bheda (dividing) besides illusion and neglect for the purpose of dispute settlement, wherein
Danda is to be employed as the last resort only. He has presented a system of envoys to carry
out diplomatic relations and has discussed classification of envoys, their qualifications, status,
immunity, duties, salary etc. in much detail. An envoy must also be sweet-spoken,
persuasive, industrious, well-versed in sciences and possessed of the ability to read others'
minds from their mannerisms. Kautilya describes the "duties of an envoy” as "sending
information to his king, ensuring maintenance of the terms of a treaty, upholding his king’s
honour, acquiring allies, instigating dissension among the friends of his enemy, conveying
secret agents and troops into enemy territory, suborning the kinsmen of the enemy to his own
king’s side, acquiring clandestinely gems and other valuable material for his own king,
ascertaining secret information and showing velour in liberating hostages held by the
enemy.” He further stipulates that no envoys should ever be harmed, and, even if they deliver
an "unpleasant” message, they should not be detained. Considering espionage system of
much importance, he has provided for both permanent and mobile spies, and has approved of
secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed seeds of discord among them, women as
weapons of war and means of vengeance, usage of religion and superstition to bolster the
king's troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, spread of misinformation amongst various ways
which appear cynical in the present context. He went on to emphasize that foreign relations
are to be determined on the basis of rational calculation of self-interest rather than being
driven by ethical considerations.
In pursuance of his foreign policy, Kautilya believed in following principles: (i) king
would enhance his kingdom's resources and power to embark upon a conquest campaign, (ii)
elimination of enemies, (iii) rearing allies, (iv) adoption of prudent course of action, (v) peace
7
MPA-102/OSOU
to be preferred to war, (vi) king must behave as just in both, victory and defeat practicing
humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects.
1.3.4 EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM AND ORGANIZED PERSONNEL

ADMINISTRATION
Kautilya opines that as a cart cannot run on a single wheel similarly the government can
also not be run by the king alone. Hence, the king needs to appoint qualified ministers for the
purpose. He suggests the king to generally have short-term confidential counsel with three to
four ministers as the inner cabinet, whereas he must act on discretion in times of crisis, and
seek counsel of the entire council of ministers and higher administrative officials under
special circumstances. Neither the strength of the members in the council of ministers has
been specified in Arthashastra, nor it has been clearly indicated that whether the departmental
heads (amatya or minister or secretary) are the same as or different from the members of the
council of ministers. The various departmental heads as mentioned include Amatya as
advisor, Purohit as religious officer, Senapati as military chief, Yuvraj as regal heir,
Samaharta as revenue collector, Sannidhata as treasurer or commissioner, Antarveshik as
security officer, Seetadhyaksha as agriculture officer, Aatvik as forest officer and many more.
In the context of the administrators and officials it has been mentioned that the more
responsible the office is, the more numerous and the higher are the qualities required for the
officer to be.
While considering King to be the focal point of administration, Kautilya has described
various departments besides the king in the administrative setup, though neither the number
of departments has been specified nor a clear-cut differentiation of these departments has
been given in Arthashastra while elaborating upon the nature, structure, headship,
responsibilities etc. of the different departments. Also as has been mentioned earlier, there is
no explicit discussion on the principles of Public Administration by Kautilya in his treatise,
rather both a direct and indirect discussion can be noted therein on the principles like
hierarchy, delegation, authority, control, decentralization, supervision, division of work,
coordination and administrative behavior. An arrangement of public undertakings is also
manifested in the document in the form of state-owned workshops pertaining to currency,
weapons, jewelry and other precious items.
Taking up the personnel administration, the treatise pays more attention to the higher
personnel than the subordinate rungs to the extent that nothing has been mentioned in detail
about the qualities to be possessed by the lower personnel except the expected incorruptibility
and goodness at work, possibly because higher personnel are vested with more authority and
responsibility. The Arthashashtra is rather silent on several aspects of personnel
administration, like post-recruitment training, definite promotion rules, superannuation rules
etc. No provision of leave, transfer is a precautionary means against corruption, proportionate
punishment for all erring, appropriate emoluments as incentives, individual duties and
dharma supersede rights to the extent that the government servants have been generally
denied any rights, observance of a definite code of conduct for all government servants are
8
MPA-102/OSOU
some if the peculiarities of Kautilya's personnel administration. Three types of government

personnel have been discussed — Upayukta as departmental head, Yukta as middle order
management and worker, and Tatpurush as the lower order servant class. Kautilya has talked
about four types of sciences Aanvikshiki (spirituality, philosophy and logic, Trayi (knowledge
of morality-immorality, history and Vedas), Vaarta (knowledge of agriculture, trade and
economics), and Dandaniti (knowledge of Statecraft and polity). Expertise’s in all the four
sciences have been made necessary for the King and his regal heir, and for the other
administrators and officials the science suitable to their work and responsibility has been
ascertained as essential.
1.3.5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION
Kautilya considered justice as the heart of the state and maintained that King's law,
mainly divided into two forms as Dharmastha (Civil Law) and Kantak Shodhana (Criminal
Law), was to be in accordance with the injunctions of the three Vedas wherein the four
varnas and ashramas are defined which form the basis of the four sources of law, namely
Dharma or Dharmashastra (sacred law), vyavahara (evidence), charita (custom and
convention) and nyaay or rajashasana (royal edicts). Kautilya prescribed that any matter of
dispute shall be judged in accordance to these four bases of justice in the order of their
increasing importance from dharma to rajashasana, and in case of conflict amongst the
various laws, dharma was supreme while the ordering of the other laws was case specific.
Arthashastra portrays law not merely as code of prohibition, nor being limited to
corrective justice of law courts, instead its range was wider than morality itself and
institutions were creation of law while traditions and customs rested on its sanctions. The
entire society, its ideas and operations were molded by law which in itself was blended with
religion, morality and public opinion. The role of law was to invoke a just order in society
and this tremendous task had been entrusted to the King along with his subordinates.
Besides the civil and criminal law, Kautilya also discusses mercantile law and codified,
modified, and created new laws related to various aspects like loans, deposits, pledges,
mortgages, sale and purchase of property, inheritance and partition of ancestral property,
labour contracts, partnership, defamation and assault, theft and violent robbery, sexual
offenses to name a few. Kautilya's view of the criminal justice system was extremely
elaborate and based on fairness in justice and deterrence. He advocated different types of
punishment including fines, property confiscation, exile, corporeal punishment, mutilation,
branding, torture, forced labour and death, depending upon the nature, gravity of the offence
and also the varna of the offender.
1.4 KAUTILYA'S CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Kautilya's emphasis on a strong state capable of creating order and providing good
governance to his subjects was the clear manifestation of the then prevalent times of petty
states at continuous war with each other, consequent anarchy and its far-reaching dangers. He
9
MPA-102/OSOU
was the first thinker who reached the pivot of realpolitik by stressing on a strong political
centre in India and propounding a theory of politics which dealt with the practical concerns of
administration and governance. The idea of a consolidated state under the guardianship of a
strong ruler centered round the idea of a welfare state. Preservation of the state's stability and
sovereignty for the good of the society was of utmost importance to Kautilya, therefore he
was convinced that the statecraft demanded deviated concepts of morality in terms of the
usage of saam, daam, danda, bheda. Although Kautilya can often be found confusing the
preservation of the state with the preservation of the King, a stand which cannot be condoned
from a modern democratic standpoint, his principles and practices of governance are still
found relevant in routine times as well as in the times of crises. The crux of Kautilya's
contribution lies in his famous definition of politics which is of much relevance even in
present scenario:
Politics is the acquisition of what has not been gained, the preservation of what has
been acquired, the increase of what has been preserved, and the bestowal of the surplus upon
the deserved. His chief concerns-presentation and development of the state in terms of a
certain concept of distributive justice, security of subjects and stability of society have been
clearly stated and these concerns have a modern futuristic vision of politics that is truly
remarkable for his age and times.
Kautilya's elaborate treatise is often debated for its originality of the authorship and also
whether it actually reflected any real system of governance. The opinions are varied and
beyond the purview of this Unit. Nonetheless, this does not in any way diminish the utility
and relevance of this seminal work in the present context. There are many exemplary 'firsts'
of Kautilya's Arthashastra which is the first comprehensive text on Public Administration in
world literature. He was the first to make Political Economy an independent discipline. For
the first time ever, emphasis was laid upon the need for a strong political centre in India
making administration its major concern. Secular polity saw the light of the day for the first
time by separating politics from religion. The focus was laid on professional bureaucracy
based on merit, rather than caste considerations, and it catered to an elaborate departmental
system with detailed job classification scheme. Realization of the importance of a strong
military administration was a significant aspect. The Saptang theory of state was a seminal
contribution in the arena of politics.
1.5 WOODROW WILSON’S LIFE AND WORKS
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), the famous President of U.S.A. and recipient of
Nobel Peace Prize, is regarded as the founder of the discipline of Public Administration for
his phenomenal contribution to administrative thought by laying down the intellectual roots
of Public Administration as an independent discipline releasing it from the cloak of Political
Science.
Woodrow Wilson, born on December 28, 1856 in the USA's Virginia and studied
politics, administration and law, was a practitioner in the field of law and political science, a
10
MPA-102/OSOU
brilliant educationist, a passionate historian, a dedicated reformer, a dynamic statesman and a

prolific writer. His scholarship and authorship both were well manifested through his first
book entitled Congressional Government (1885)which he wrote when he was still pursuing
his graduation at Johns Hopkins University, and this was recognized by the university as a
doctoral thesis the very next year awarding him the Ph.D. Degree in history and political
science. His death in 1924 created a vacuum in the discipline of Public Administration.
Woodrow Wilson, the former President of the American Political Science Association
(1911), was deeply influenced by the contemporary events which marked a degenerated
spoils system in the U.S.A. and the consequential abuse created by it at political level. Led by
the deep concern for the entire state of affairs, Wilson was convinced that the reforms in the
system were imperative and effective reforms lied in the study of administration. It was in
tune with this reform movement that he proposed administration should be separated from
political and policy concerns. Wilson’s political philosophy was mainly influenced by
Edmund Burke while Walter Bagehot attracted his attention towards administration and
comparative government. However, the credit for evoking Wilson’s interest in administrative
studies goes to Prof. Richard T. Ely of Johns Hopkins University. In Ely’s own words,
"When I talked of the importance of administration, I felt that I struck a spark and kindled a
fire in Wilson".
The major works authored by Woodrow Wilson include Congressional Government

(1885); The Study of Administration (1887); The State: Elements of Historical and Practical
Politics (1889); Division and Reunion 1829-1889 (1893); Mere Literature and other Essays
(1896); George Washington (1896); A History of the American People (1902); and
Constitutional Government in the United States (1908) and many more.
1.6 WOODROW WILSON'S ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT
Thomas Woodrow Wilson emphasized upon the need for the scientific study of
administration in his famous essay The Study of Administration (1887) wherein he has traced
the history of the study of administration as a new development in political science, outlined
its significance and suggested the ways and means to conduct it. The essay's importance can
be well understood from the fact that it is hailed by the scholars and experts as a ‘significant
trail-blazing effort’ and "mine of wisdom". Dwight Waldo termed Wilson's essay as "the
most important document in the development of Public Administration". It was only through
this “seminal" essay that Woodrow Wilson gained prominence.
The essay started drawing attention, even before it was published in Political Science
Quarterly in 1887, through its presentation before the Historical and Political Science
Association at its meeting held in Ithaca, New York. It was considered and evaluated as one
of the best essays written on administration, though Wilson himself did not consider it worthy
of publication, and began to be seriously studied by scholars of administration.
He has tried to draw conceptual distinctions between Politics and Administration as to

him these two comprises separate processes and therefore demanded to be developed as
11
MPA-102/OSOU
distinct fields of studies. Wilson believed that the grounding of democratic political systems
has enhanced the significance of administration due to the ever-increasing number and nature
of activities therein, with public opinion gaining greater importance in administration. He was
an avid advocate of comparative study methods to understand the science of administration
by learning from the other's experiences. In the modern context, the realm of Public
Administration discipline has witnessed a new rising in academic discourse from the
principles of administration enunciated and issues raised by Woodrow Wilson. His views on
different aspects of the study of administration are discussed in the following segments.
1.6.1 SCIENCE OF ADMINISTRATION
At the very outset of his essay, Wilson came up with the conceptual clarity that
‘administration is the most obvious part of government; it is government in action; it is the
executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and it is of course as old as
government itself.’ However, this concept of administration failed to receive the early
attention of political scholars as is clear from his observation that ‘no one wrote
systematically of administration as a branch of the science of government until the present
century….all the political writers whom we now read had thought, argued, dogmatized only
about the constitution of government, about the nature of the state, the essence and seat of
sovereignty, popular power and kingly prerogative; about the greatest meanings lying at the
heart of government, and the high ends set before the purpose of government by man’s nature
and man’s aims’. He argues that to the earlier scholars, the fundamental question always
remained: who shall make law, and what shall that law be? The other equally relevant
question of how law should be administered with enlightenment, with equity, with speed, and
without friction was put aside as a mere practical detail. This, as explained by Wilson, was
due to the simple nature of government functions, simple system of public revenues and
public debts, simple sorts of property, manageable number of populations and predominance
of possession of power rather than its exercise in the early times.
The scenario had now undergone a sea change with the functions of government having
become increasingly complex and difficult in nature and vastly multiplying in number. He,
therefore, believed that with the continually upcoming new things which the state ought to
do, what exactly should catch our focus is to understand clearly how it ought to do them.
Thus, in the changed scenario, Wilson sensed the need and significance of the science of
administration. He explained that it is therefore why administrative tasks nowadays
demanded to be so studiously and systematically adjusted to carefully tested standards of
policy. Wilson strongly believed that unless a nation stops tinkering with the constitution, it
will be extremely difficult to concentrate on details of administration. He cautioned that the
debate on constitutional principles is of little practical consequence and hence needs to be set
aside, instead one should try to systematically understand and analyze the science of
administration as, he aptly remarked, it is getting more difficult to run a constitution than to
frame one.
12
MPA-102/OSOU
1.6.2 EVOLUTION OF THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATION
Wilson strongly believed that the science of administration was the latest fruit of the
science of politics. While tracing the evolution of the science of administration, Wilson was
highly critical of the fact that this science can hardly be discerned in the administrative
practices of the U.S.A. mainly due to the obnoxious atmosphere of city government, the
crooked secrets of state administration, the widespread confusion and corruption. Wilson
believed that the reasons behind the study of administration first received attention in Europe
rather than in England or the United States were twofold: one, as the government in Europe
was independent of popular assent, more governance could be realized; and two, efforts were
made in Europe to discovering the least irritating means of governance so as to maintain
monopoly of government. On the basis of the constitutional histories of the leading nations of
the modern world, Wilson has put forward a classification of three periods of growth first
one that of absolute rulers; next in which framing of constitutions was done to substitute
absolute rulers with popular control and administration got neglected while catering to these
higher concerns; and the third one relates to when the sovereign people undertook the
development of administration under this new Constitution which empowered them to do so.
Explaining further Wilson referred to those governments (Prussia and France) being in lead
in administrative practices and the administration having been organized to sub serve the
general weal with desired simplicity and effectiveness. On the contrary, nations like England
and the U.S.A. which entered upon a phase of constitution-making and popular reform before
the administration could be molded on the lines of liberal principles witnessed a tardy and
rather neglected approach towards administrative development. He aptly pointed out that
‘English and American political history has been a history, not of administrative
development, but of legislative oversight—not of progress in governmental organization, but
of advance in law-making and political criticism.’
Wilson remarked that the world is prevailing in the third period when the people are required
to develop administration in accordance with the constitutional arrangements achieved during
the previous period. However, he bemoaned peoples' unpreparedness for the tasks up ahead;
and blamed the concept of popular sovereignty as the major hurdle in the way of achieving
this cardinal objective and indicated, ‘it is harder for democracy to organize administration
than for monarchy’ courtesy the multiplicity of differing opinions of people as sovereign,
thus leading to administratively compounding situation yielding practically slower rate of
necessary reforms. Nonetheless, Woodrow Wilson was unequivocal in advocating the study
and growth of administration independent from the clout of politics despite all odds and
hardships involved in the prevalent scenario.
1.6.3 DICHOTOMY BETWEEN POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION
Wilson asserted that the field of administration is necessarily about performance and is
removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart even from the
debatable ground of constitutional study. Drawing a comparison between administration and
politics he suggests that it is a part of political life only as the methods of the counting-house
13
MPA-102/OSOU
are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product.
Likewise, in an observation made by Wilson at another instance he considers the distinction
between the two of high authority as ‘administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics.
Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for
administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.’ Drawing support for this
proposition, he even quoted Bluntschli, an eminent German writer who said: Politics is state
activity “in things great and universal,” while “administration, on the other hand,” is “the
activity of the state in individual and small things. Politics is thus the special province of the
statesman, administration of the technical official.” there is ambiguity and confusion with
regard to Wilson’s views However, regarding dichotomy between politics and administration
there appears an ambiguity when he is found mentioning at another place that ‘no lines of
demarcation, setting apart administrative from non-administrative functions, can be run
between this and that department…. A great deal of administration goes about incognito to
most of the world, being confounded now with political “management,” and again with
constitutional principles.’ Quite likely, this confusion was perhaps a reflection of his ideas on
‘Liberty’, which he said, ‘cannot live apart from constitutional principle; and no
administration, however perfect and liberal, its methods can give men more than a poor
counterfeit of liberty it rests upon illiberal principles of government.’ Nonetheless, there was
no confusion with him on the existence of the distinction between constitutional law and
administrative functions and of a definite criterion suggesting this distinction. To this, he
remarked: ‘Public Administration is detailed and systematic execution of public law. Every
particular application of general law is an act of administration. The assessment and raising
of taxes, for instance, the hanging of a criminal, the transportation and the delivery of the
mails, the equipment and the recruiting of the army and navy, etc., are all obviously acts of
administration; but the general laws which direct these things to be done are as obviously
outside of and above administration. The broad plans of governmental action are not
administrative; the detailed execution of such plans is administrative.’ Wilson strongly held
that the administrative studies infringe on constitutional ground only on a single aspect, i.e.,
the distribution of constitutional authority, which is an integral part of the study of
administration. In the backdrop of a democratic system, he believed if administrative study
can discover the best principles upon which to base such distribution, it would have been a
great service to constitutional study and of utmost significance. Further, addressing the
fundamental question of how to ally the suspicion of sovereign people towards their
representatives in a democracy, Wilson clarifies that ‘if that suspicion could be clarified into
wise vigilance, it would be altogether salutary; if that vigilance could be aided by the
unmistakable placing of responsibility, it would be altogether beneficent.’
1.6.4 PUBLIC OPINION AND ADMINISTRATION
Wilson was well aware of the complexities of a democratic system, therefore raised a
pertinent question as to what role will public opinion play in the conduct of administration,
and progressively replied that ‘public opinion shall play the part of authoritative critic’. At
the same time, he was conscious of the fact that it is not an easy proposition particularly in
the U.S.A.’s context, where public opinion is evidently meddlesome. The same gets
14
MPA-102/OSOU
manifested when he puts forth his observation that ‘in those countries in which public opinion
has yet to be instructed in its privileges, yet to be accustomed to having its own way, this
question as to the province of public opinion is much more readily soluble than in this
country (U.S.A.), where public opinion is wide awake and quite intent upon having its own
way anyhow.’ It was therefore that he preferred administrative studies over universal political
education as such study has the potential to make public opinion efficient without suffering it
to be meddlesome. Wilson emphasized that administration in the United States should be at
all points sensitive to public opinion but at the same time, administrators must adhere to the
policy of the government they serve and that policy should be the creation of statesmen,
whose responsibility to public opinion will be direct and inevitable. He summarily remarked
that civil service should be ‘cultured and self-sufficient enough to act with sense and vigor,
and yet so intimately connected with popular thought, by means of elections and constant
public counsel, as to find arbitrariness or class spirit quite out of question.’
1.6.5 COMPARATIVE METHODS
Having dealt with the subject matter and objects of the study of administration, Wilson
was much alert to the need of examining the best suitable method for it. He explicitly favored
the comparative method when he said that ‘without comparative studies in government we
cannot rid ourselves of the misconception that administration stands upon an essentially
different basis in a democratic state from that on which it stands in a non-democratic state.’
He clarified that it is only after such studies that one can develop the ability to appreciate the
democratic set up in which all issues affecting the public welfare are debated and determined
on a majority basis.
Woodrow Wilson, further, observed that historical comparative method can more safely
be used in the field of administration than anywhere in the whole gamut of politics as he
rightly remarked: ‘Let it be noted that it is the distinction, already drawn, between
administration and politics which makes the comparative method so safe in the field of
administration.’ In this context, he also observed that ‘we can never learn either our own
weakness or our own virtues by comparing ourselves with ourselves.’ Elaborating this he said
that all governments have a strong structural likeness regarding administrative functions
especially when these are to be uniformly useful and efficient. At the same time all
governments alike have the same legitimate ends of administration.
Comparative studies of different systems help in finding the best method of good
administration which can be adopted by others after necessary modifications. In Wilson’s
own words, ‘we can borrow the science of administration with safety and profit if only we
read all fundamental differences of condition into its essential tenets. We have only to filter it
through our constitutions, only to put it over a slow fire of criticism and distil away its
foreign gases.’
Wilson was much aware of the fact that there is an apprehension in the minds of some of his
countrymen that the studies of comparative methods might prove some European principles
better than those of America. However, dispelling such fears he said that ‘our own politics
15
MPA-102/OSOU
must be the touchstone for all theories.’ He further clarified that: ‘Our duty is, to supply the
best possible life to a federal government, to systems within systems; to make town, city,
country, state, and federal governments live with a like strength and an equally assured
healthfulness, keeping each unquestionably its own masters and yet making all
interdependent and cooperative, combining independence with mutual helpfulness.’ He
emphatically opined that if comparative studies help us in this endeavor, they will be worthy
of undertaking. Thus, Wilson was a strong advocate of comparative methods in the realm of
administrative studies.
1.7 WOODROW WILSON’S CRITICAL APPRAISAL
The Study of Administration, the famous essay by Woodrow Wilson is widely regarded
as the first theoretical piece on Public Administration. However, the critics have termed it to
be ambiguous particularly with regard to Wilson's stand on the politics-administration
dichotomy while pointing out his difference of opinion when he, on one hand, apparently
considered politics and administration as separate disciplines while on the other hand, he
based administrative principles on politics. Further, they maintain that he failed to amplify
what the study of administration actually entailed, what was proper relationship between
politics and administrative realms and whether or not administrative studies could become
abstract science similar to natural sciences. In this regard, Richard J. Stillman has pointed out
that ‘in formulating his politics/administration dichotomy, Wilson apparently misinterpreted
some of the German literature that he read on Public Administration'. Notwithstanding this,
an objective assessment of his views regarding politics-administration dichotomy makes it
sufficiently clear that most of the criticisms leveled against Wilson in this context lack the
ground as he intended to build up strong and practical machinery which could effectively and
efficiently deliver to address the needs of the common masses. As such, he tried to offer a
balanced view regarding relations between politics and administration. Further, Wilson’s
views have also been criticized for being inconsistent. In this regard, Dwight Waldo has
pointed out that Wilson's thoughts are really confusing for any careful reader as he has tried
to link administration to business methods, instituted a civil service and more such instances
are found, Besides, he further highlights, Wilson aimed at discovering what should an
administrator properly and successfully do, but actually he focused more on the separation
and non-separation of politics and administration and even this aspect lacks any clarity.
Wilson himself has noted that his study is ‘too general, too broad and too vague’ as he has
raised too many questions and provided answers to too few.
Wilson is also criticized on the ground that his view lack originality. In this regard
Daniel W. Martin has remarked that 'Woodrow Wilson’s advocacy of politics-administration
dichotomy had been employed in Europe nearly a century earlier. The academic field of
administration had matured in France between 1812 and 1859. What is more, no one
including White, Dimock identified Wilson as the founder of the study of administration'.
This view, however, does not hold much good as according to the supporters of Wilson, it
was his famous essay which gave birth to Public Administration as self-consciousness
enquiry and gave rise to it as a recognized field of study. Analyzing the standpoint of
16
MPA-102/OSOU
development of Public Administration in the 19th century, his writings were far-reaching and
stimulating. According to Allen Schick, through his most distinguished essay, Wilson not
only introduced the idea of administration but also launched Public Administration as a
generic course.
Summing up, it can be put forward that notwithstanding a certain amount of ambiguity and
inconsistency in his views here and there, Wilson's contribution to administrative thought is
phenomenal as he laid down the intellectual roots of Public Administration as an independent
discipline by releasing it from the clutches of Political Science. Given the increasing
complexities of the nature and quantum of state's activities in a democratic polity, Wilson has
been emphatic about the significance of administration; appreciated the value of public
opinion therein; and advocated the deployment of comparative method so as to enable one to
learn from the experiences of others thereby enriching the discipline of administration as a
science. Quite interestingly, the principles of administration enunciated and the issues raised
by him have become the matter of debate and discussion from time to time.
1.8 ACTIVITIES
1. Examine the contribution of Woodrow Wilson in the light of his status as the ‘father of
Public Administration’.
2. Analyse Woodrow Wilson's perspective of Public Opinion in the Science of
Administration.
3. Critically examine Woodrow Wilson's Politics-Administration dichotomy to the extent it
has come to affect the relationship between the two major components of government.
4. Critically analyse Kautilya's Saptanga theory of state.
5. Highlight the major aspects of Kautilya's administrative thought.
6. Critically examine the relevance of Kautilya's administrative ideas in the modern context.
7. Discuss the administrative structure as elucidated in Kautilya's Arthashastra.
1.9 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
 Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 2,

(June, 1887), pp. 197-222.
 Prasad, Ravindra D. et. al, (Eds.), (2011) Administrative Thinkers, Sterling
Publishers, New Delhi.
 White, Leonard D., (1954), Introduction to the Study of Public Administration,
Macmillan, New York.
 Turner, Henry A., “Woodrow Wilson as Administrator,” Public Administration
Review, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 1956.
 Maheshwari S., Administrative Thinkers, Delhi, MacMillan, 2003
 Mehta, V.R., Foundations of Indian Political Thought, Delhi, Manohar, 1999.
 Parmar, A., A study of Kautilya’s Arthshastra, Delhi, Atma Ram & Sons, 1987.
17
MPA-102/OSOU
 Prasad & Prasad, (ed) Administrative Thinkers, Delhi, Sterling Enlarged, Edition
2010.
 Rangarajan L.N, Kautilya: The Arthshastra, New Delhi, Penguin 1992.
 Sapru R.K., Administrative Theories and Management Thought, Delhi, PHI, 2008.
 Sen Sarma Sunil, Kautilya’s Arthshastra: In the Light of Modern Science and
Technology, New Delhi, D.K. Print World, 2001.
 Shamasastry R, Kautilya’s Arthshastra, Weslevan, Mission Press, Mysore, 1929.
18
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-2: FREDERIC WINSLOW TAYLOR &HENRY FAYOL
Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 F.W Taylor
2.2.1 The Background
2.2.2 Life and Works
2.2.3 Soldering of work
2.2.4 Concept of Scientific Management
2.2.5 Impact of Scientific Management
2.2.6 The Critical Evaluation
2.3 Henry Fayol
2.3.1The Background
2.3.2 Life and Works
2.3.3 Elements of Management
2.3.4 Principles of Administration
2.3.5 Critical Estimation
2.4 Comparison between Taylor and Fayol
2.5 Conclusion
2.6 Key Concepts
2.7 Activities
2.8 References and further Readings
The purpose of this Unit is to explain you about the contributions of Taylor and Fayol to the
development of administrative theory. After reading this Unit you will be able to:
 Highlight the important contributions of Taylor and Fayol to the organization theory;
 Identify the important concepts of both the writers explained as part of the study of
organizations;
 Describe the principles developed by these writers and its uniqueness in the study of
organizations; and
 Compare and contrast the main ideas of these writers.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit aims to discuss the important contributions of F.W. Taylor and Henry Fayol to
the study of classical theory of organization or administration. Classical theory of
administration has contributed for the emergence of certain specific ideas which have
practical value. It also identified administration as a distinct function to be studied and
practiced. The practical achievement was to make people think and apply themselves to the
problem of management and organization. Secondly it introduced some clear thinking about
19
MPA-102/OSOU
authority, responsibility, and delegation. Thirdly it propounded the idea that administration is
a separate activity which deserves intellectual investigation. It played a significant role in
rationalizing and stimulating production in the industrial organization, to some extent made
significant contribution to the development of the organization theories. These thinkers also
focused on centralized authority, labour specialization and incentives to optimize productivity
in an organization and, in turn, to derive profits.
Frederick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol and Max Weber are considered as the important
proponents of classical theory of organization, which is mainly the confluence of three sub
theories, i,e, the administrative management theory of Henri Fayol, the scientific
management theory of Frederic Winslow Taylor, and the theory of bureaucracy of Max
Weber. The scholarship of these thinkers focuses on scientific methods and empirical
research to examine the most effective methods to accomplish specific tasks. Each of them
have highlighted the three specific methods of organization or administration viz, Scientific
method, administrative management and bureaucratic management. Hence, these writers have
occupied a prominent place in the evolution of administrative theory. The present Unit
focuses its attention on the contribution of F.W Taylor and Henry Fayol to the organization
theory. In the first part of the Unit, effort is made to examine the contributions of F.W Taylor,
particularly his ideas on principles of scientific management, piece rate system, functional
foremanship, mental revolution etc. The second part of the Unit is devoted to explain the
important ideas of Fayol, more specifically the general principles of administration, which
have according to him, universal applicability.
2.2 F.W TAYLOR
2.2.1 THE BACKGROUND
During the latter half of the nineteenth century, when industrial revolution had reached
a stage of maturity, American business and industry were substantially expanding; it was
giving rise to a new managerial class and resultant new problems of industrial planning and
management. The practice of management began to change from a simple day-to-day
problem–solving approach to a more comprehensive and integrated approach. The multiple
managerial problems which were faced by the managers previously started reoccurring. This
situation arose because of rapid industrialization. The working conditions in the factories
were chaotic. The work methods, tools and, procedures were neither standardized nor
planned for efficiency. Choice of methods of work was mainly left to the workers themselves
resulting in considerable ad-hoc planning and inefficiency. The need was felt to increase
productivity which required in the long run a more rational and integrated approach to
managerial problems. The concern for increasing the efficiency of workers to increase
production within the least possible time with least possible resources resulted in the origin of
the concept of “Scientific Management” which is used to designate a body of theory and
practice directed towards more rational and efficient performance in industry. While it was
used originally with reference to direct efforts to increase the productivity of labour, the
20
MPA-102/OSOU
application of the term has since been extended to include the basic factors in the process of
production as a whole.
2.2.2 LIFE AND WORKS
Frederick Winslow Taylor was born in 1856 at Boston, Massachusetts, USA. At a

student, he was keen on taking up a career in law but his physicians had advised him against
further studies because of his weak vision. As a result, Taylor had to abandon his plans to
study law, and he initiated his career as an apprentice in Enterprise Hydraulic Works in
Philadelphia. He worked there for four years (1875-78) during which period he completed
his apprenticeship. Taylor joined the Midvale Steel Works in Philadelphia (U.S.A), as a
machinist in 1878 and rose-to-the position of chief engineer in 1884 at the age of twenty
eight. While working in Midvale Steel Works, Taylor realized certain shortcomings of
factory operation which he subsequently referred to in his writing. For instance, management
had no clear concept of worker-management responsibilities, virtually no effective work
standards were applied, no incentive was used to improve workers’ performance, managerial
decisions were based on hunch, intuition, past experience, or ‘rule of thumb’ evaluations and
workers were ineptly placed at tasks for which they had no ability or aptitude, were some of
the shortcomings discovered by Taylor.
 Important Works of Taylor

Taylor presented his paper 'A Piece Rate System' in 1895 in which he described the system of
management that he had developed. He mentioned certain principles that must be used in any
system of wage payment, where differential reward was offered. In 1903 he presented his
second paper 'Shop Management' which focuses attention of his philosophy of management
rather than on wage payment. The other important work he authored was ‘The Art of Cutting
Metals’ in 1906. Taylor published his 'Principles of Scientific Management' in 1911 and his
other contribution was “Testimony before the Special House Committee” which was
presented in 1912. These two works were combined in one book entitled 'Scientific
Management' in 1947.
2.2.3 SOLDERING OF WORK
Taylor believed that industrial management during his time was amateurish and felt that
best results could be achieved through partnership between trained staff, qualified
management and cooperative workers. He noticed the phenomenon of workers purposely
operating below the capacity and calls the phenomenon as soldering or skiving. He attributed
three reasons for this: (1) workers deliberately do as little as one can safely do due to the
belief that if they become over productive some of them could become surplus and would be
eliminated. (2) non-incentive wage systems encourage low productivity, employees take care
never to work at a high pace for the fear that higher pace may become the standard as a result
of which, the employees fear that their wages may come down and (3) workers waste their
time and effort by relying on rule of thumb and unscientific methods and practices than those
scientifically determined.
21
MPA-102/OSOU
To counter the practices, soldiering and to improve efficiency, Taylor undertook

experiments to determine the best level of performance for jobs. The process of present day
benchmarking-and what was necessary to achieve this level of performance. They were
characterized by the use of stop watches to time a workers sequence of motion, with a
objective of determining the one best way to perform a job.
Taylor tried to find an answer to the question “Why is there so much antagonism between the
management and the workers and so much inefficiency in industry” leading to low
productivity in organizations. He identified that:
1) The belief of the workers that any increase in output would inevitably result in
unemployment;
2) The improper remuneration systems of management which did not motivate the
worker to increase his productivity;
3) The effort wasting methods of work followed by the workers.
To overcome the above obstacles, Taylor conceived the idea of “Scientific Management”.
2.2.4 CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
In order to find ways to raise industrial productivity, many experiments were conducted
and suggestions were made by many management thinkers. The development of Scientific
Management is one such effort emerged from such experiments. The prominent economists
such as Henry R. Towne and Henry Metcalfe expressed their concern over the emerging
problems of management. Towne wrote a paper entitled ‘The Engineer as an Economist’ and
presented it in 1886 before the American society of mechanical engineers. Perhaps this paper
inspired Fredrick Taylor, who joined the society in the same year, to devote his attention to
the field of Scientific Management. It is interesting to note that the term ‘Scientific
Management’ was first coined by Louis Brandies at a meeting of Engineers held in 1910.
Later it was developed by F.W. Taylor into a full-fledged theory.
Taylor began a series of experiments which lasted for more than two decades. He
experimented with machine tools, speed metals and the like. In fact, one line of his
experiments led to the discovery of high speed steel, which made him well known. Other
experiments pertained to the way men handled materials, machines and tools (motion and
time study), which led him to the development of a coordinated system of shop management.
He later expanded his concepts to a philosophy which ultimately had a major impact on the
development of management thought. It is due to these pioneering contributions that Taylor
has been acknowledged as the ‘Father of Scientific Management’.
(i) Objectives of Scientific Management

There were five original objectives of the Scientific Management. They were:
a) Industrial processes can be reduced to units for scientific observation and experiments.
The operations of workmen can be reduced to fundamental motions to ascertain in longest,
shortest and average time required for each motion.
22
MPA-102/OSOU
b) The standard time prescribed for each operation can be used as the task for each workman
to achieve. Each unit of product can be produced at a designated standard of efficiency
and at a standard cost.
c) The workmen can be instructed in the best methods for achieving the standards and the
responsibility for imparting such instructions should be in the hands of foremen or
supervisors.
d) The workmen can be relieved of the responsibility for determining how a process is to be
performed and thereby enable them to concentrate on the development of their mental
dexterities.
e) The workmen can be inspired to accept new methods and to acquire dexterity in carrying
out the specification to achieve performance standards.
(ii) Principles of Scientific Management
In order to solve the problems that he identified in industry and achieve the objectives of
Scientific Management, Taylor advocated the following principles of Scientific Management:
a) Development of a true science of work:

This principle suggests that the work assigned to any employee should be observed and
analyzed with respect to each element or part, and the time involved in it, so as to decide the
best way of performing the work and to determine the standard output. This basic principle of
scientific management requires that the application of scientific methods should replace rule
of thumb methods.
b) Scientific selection, training and development of the workmen:

It is essential for efficiency in production that workers should be selected with due care. Their
skill and experience must be matched with the requirements of the respective jobs they are to
perform. The employees should be selected on the basis of tests and interviews. The
workmen so selected must be given training for the specific tasks assigned. Training must
also be arranged to develop their abilities to improve performance.
c) Bringing together the Science of work and scientifically selected and trained men:
To enable the worker to do his job and to ensure that he may not slip back to the earlier
methods of doing work, there must be somebody to inspire the workers. This, according to
Taylor is the exclusive responsibility of the management. He believed that works were
always willing to cooperate with the management, but there is more opposition from the side
of management itself and he said that this process of bringing together causes the mental
revolution.
d) Division of responsibility between management and workers:

Planning of work should be the responsibility of mangers and the execution of planned work,
the responsibility of workers. Taylor advocated separation of the two kinds of responsibilities
to that each individual may be able to perform the tasks to the best of his abilities and be
23
MPA-102/OSOU
compensated accordingly. Thus, efficient performance of managers as well workers may be

secured.
However, none of these principles could be isolated and called scientific management.
It is a combination of all elements described above. The philosophy of these principles may
be summarized as under:
 Science, not rule-of-thumb;
 Harmony, not individualism;
 Cooperation, not individualism;
 Maximum output, in pace of restricted output; and
 The development of each man to his greatest efficiency and prosperity.
(iii) Principles of Operation
In order to successfully implement the philosophy of the above stated principles in the actual
working of an organization, Taylor advocated the following techniques:
(1) Method study: Method study involves determination of the basic steps in performing a
job.
(2) Motion study: After the appropriate methods to complete the tasks are laid down then the
best way to do the determined i.e., motion study. Motion study is a preferable work
method with consideration to raw materials, tools and equipment, hand and body
motion.
(3) Time Study: After completion of the methods study and the motion study, the standard
time for completion of the task is determined i.e., time study. Time study is fixing of
appropriate time to complete a task after the preferred way is determined.
(4) Standard: The logical step that follows after the motion study and time study is the
determination of a standard. Taylor defined “Standard” as the level at which a first
class worker would perform under ideal conditions.
(iv) Piece Rate System:

Taylor’s piece rate system was considered as an outstanding contribution to the principles of
wage administration. After the determination of the standard, the management has to fix a
pay package based on ‘piece rates’. Under this system a worker is paid according to the
number of pieces that he produces. He proposed a new system consisting of three parts: (a)
observation and analysis of work through time study to set the ‘rate’ or standard, (b) a
differential rate system rate system of piece work, and (3) and paying men and not positions.
The pay plan based on piece rates was known as the 'differential piece rate plan'. Under this
system, a worker was paid a low piece rate up to standard, a large bonus on reaching standard
and a higher piece rate after standard.
(v) Functional Foremanship:

Taylor thought that planning and other managerial functions that formerly were often done by
workmen ought to be done by specialists. The management of work, he thought, ought to be
separated from its execution. In the case of a production shop, Taylor suggested eight
24
MPA-102/OSOU
functional foremen: gang boss, speed boss, inspector, repair boss, order-of-work-and-route
clerk, instruction-card clerk, time-and-cost clerk, and shop disciplinarian. In fact, Taylor said
that each worker would have eight specialized supervisors.
(vi) Mental revolution:

The principal object of management, according to Taylor, is to secure the maximum
prosperity for employee. According to his philosophy of scientific management, there is no
inherent conflict in the interest of the employers, workers and consumers. The primary
concern of Taylor was that the results of higher productivity should equally benefit all people
i.e., workers, employers and consumers in the shape of higher wages to the workers, greater
profits to the management and payment of lower prices for the products by the consumers.
To quote Reinhardt Bendix “By maximizing the productive efficiency of each worker,
scientific management would also maximize the earnings of workers and employers. Hence,
all conflicts between capital and labor would be resolved by the findings of science”.
(vi) Mechanisms of Management

It is important to note that Taylor distinguished between ‘principles’ of management and
‘mechanisms’ of management. Some of the mechanisms advocated by Taylor were as
follows:
a) The use of the stop-watch which was essential for the technique of time study.
b) Standardization of all tools and techniques used in trades.
c) Planning of a large daily task should be undertaken in order to promote industrial
efficiency. Therefore, Taylor favoured the setting up of a separate planning cell or a
department in every industrial unit.
d) The use of time-saving devices, e.g., slides rules.
e) The use of instruction card system to record what to do and how to do particular tasks.
f) Adoption of proper classification system of manufactured products as well as
implements used in the manufacturing process.
g) Use of the bonus system for the successful performance of the tasks.
h) Application of the “exception” principle under which Taylor called for setting up a
large daily task, with reward for meeting it and penalty for not achieving the targets.
i) Promotion of modern costing system.
2.2.5 IMPACT OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
It is significant to mention that Scientific Management brought a drastic change in the

whole approach towards the management of industries. The impact of the movement was felt
through the overall improvement in industrial management. Through, it, wastage of human
and material resources was minimized. It also helped for better and effective utilization of
labour and material. Besides, increasing opportunities were provided to labour, by placing
the workers in a better position, giving them higher wages, limiting their working hours and
above all the creating better working conditions for them.
25
MPA-102/OSOU
The impact of Scientific Management was felt not only on labour but also on
management. More accurate control system and planning was evolved. The movement also
provided guidelines to the management to develop an effective organization. Notably, Taylor
was probably the first management thinker to stress the concept of research and use of
standards in management. It was he who emphasized the importance of planning which had
been overlooked for many years and the concept of control in management. In addition to the
above four postulates, viz., research, standards maintenance, planning and control, Taylor
introduced, the guideline of cooperation between labour and management. These five
principles form the base of every successful management.
 In the United States of America

In the early years of the 20th century, scientific management had a snowballing impact on
administrative thought and practice in the United States. It permeated not only industrial
enterprises and business establishments, but also government organizations. In 1910, the
scientific management movement manifested itself in the establishment of the Commission of
Economy and Efficiency under President William Howard Taft. The recommendations of
this Commission further popularized the scientific management movement. Later, President
Woodrow Wilson, who was an advocate of administrative efficiency through the democratic
credo and civil service reform, tried to harmonize efficiency with democratic principles of
government, Taylor’s advocacy of the one best way to do each work productive or
managerial was equally implemented in industrial and governmental business and
management. Thus, the scientific technology of Taylorism, besides the democratic principle,
comprised the twin elements of American Public Administration.
 In the Russia
Scientific Management was popular not only in America but it also gained considerable
significance in the Russian industries. The Russian Scientific Management was identified
with Taylor’s name even before 1920. V.I Lenin exhorted the Russian industrial managers to
apply the principles of Scientific Management for increasing production. Although during
1930s and 1940s tendency prevailed to popularize the Soviet campaign for greater and more
efficient production through the application of Scientific Management, this was done in the
name of the Russian workers and not of Taylorism.
2.2.6 THE CRITICAL EVALUATION
Scientific Management has been criticized on the following grounds:

a) Mechanistic Approach: Scientific Management was supremely concerned with
organizational efficiency interpreted only in mechanistic terms. The organization was
viewed as a machine and the worker as a cog in the machine to run it towards the
achievement of organizational goals. This mechanistic view of man is rather degrading
and unacceptable to a modern man.
b) Atomistic Approach: Scientific Management views the worker as an “atom” i.e., the
worker is viewed as an independent entity unaffected by his fellow workmen. Hence it
has also been called as a ‘machine model theory’.
26
MPA-102/OSOU
c) Over simplifies worker motivation: Taylor’s theory is based on the premise that man is
motivated by economic rewards only. It also assumes that a worker will put in his best
effort only to earn more money. This is rather an over simplified view of human
motivation. Administrative thinkers at a later date pointed but that man is multi-
motivated i.e., he is motivated by various factors.
d) Concerned only with a limited number of variables: Scientific Management is
concerned with only that range of human behavior which relates to production. It
completely neglects the psychological and physiological aspects of organization theory.
e) Depersonalizes industrial atmosphere: Scientific Management is built around the
concept of fragmenting work and breaking down into its smallest components, so that
ideally managers could control workers and production more or less mechanically. Such
fragmented jobs dehumanized the organizational member reducing him to the role of an
impersonal cog in the machine of production. Working on dull, monotonous and
mechanical jobs, the worker was assumed to be without emotion and capable of being
manipulated just like machines. The worker, so far as the model was concerned, had no
life outside his job or separate from his tasks.
f) Undermines the role of trade unions: The greatest resistance to Scientific Management
came from the labour leaders who found Taylorism, a threat to their role and to the
growth of the trade union movement. It was Taylor’s conviction that effective
cooperation between employer and employees would flow from better management
through the application of scientific principles. Unions would then become unnecessary.
Having realized the threat to their existence, the trade union workers revolted against the
Taylorism as they felt that it destroys the principle of collective bargaining.
2.3 HENRY FAYOL
2.3.1 THE BACKGROUND
Henry Fayol is the main proponent of the administrative management school of

classical theory. Administrative management school aims to improve organizational
productivity by focusing on methods that managers can use to synchronize internal processes.
Fayol believed managerial practices are keys to driving efficiency in organizations.
Therefore, this branch seeks to heighten managerial performance instead of individual worker
efficiency.
Henri Fayol is regarded as the founder of this managerial approach that stressed on a
structure of an organization whose management worked by being guided by universally and
scientifically valid principles of management to get the most out of the workers and achieve
the organization’s objectives. Henry Fayol, also known as the ‘father of modern management
theory and he gave a new perception of the concept of management. He introduced a general
theory that can be applied to all levels of management and every department.
27
MPA-102/OSOU
2.3.2 LIFE AD WORKS
Henri Fayol (1841 – 1925) was a French coal-mine engineer, director of mines and
modern management theoretician. His administrative theory forms the base for business
administration and business management. In the academic world, this is best known
as Fayolism. Henri Fayol provided one of the most influential modern
management concepts of his time. He was born in a suburb of Istanbul, Turkey in 1841. His
father, an engineer, was appointed building supervisor for the construction of a bridge over
the Golden Horn (Galata Bridge). The family returned to France in 1847. He studied mining
engineering at the ‘École Nationale Superieure des Mines’ academy in Saint-Étienne. Fayol
started his career as an engineer at the mining company Compagnie de Commentry
Fourchambeau Decazeville in Commentry at the age of 19. In 1878, Henri Fayol was invited
to present a report on the self-ignition of coal exposed to air and the report was well received
and he gained a good popularity. In 1888, he became the Managing Director of this mining
company that employed over 1,000 people. Under his leadership, the company became one of
the most successful and largest producers of steel and iron in France. Fayol died in Paris on
November 19, 1925 at the age of 84 years. In 1916, Henri Fayol published his work
experience in the book Administration Industrielle et Generale (General and Industrial
Management). The following are the important works of Fayol:
(1) 1929. Allgemeine und industrielle Verwaltung. München und Berlin: Oldenbourg.
(2) 1927. The importance of the administrative factor. Readings in management:
Landmarks and new frontiers.
(3) 1921. L’incapacité industrielle de l’Etat: l+es PTT. Dunod.
(4) 1918. De l’importance de la fonction administrative dans la gouvernement des
affaires…: Conférence faite le 24 novembre 1917. Ph. Renouard.
(5) 1918. Notice sur les travaux scientifiques et techniques de M. Henri Fayol. Gauthier-
Villars.
(6) 1918. L administration positive dans l industrie. La Technique Moderne, 1, 74.
(7) 1917. Administration industrielle et générale; prévoyance, organisation,
commandement, coordination, controle. Paris, H. Dunod et E. Pinat, OCLC 40224931
(8) 1916. General and Industrial Management. Martino Fine Books.
(9) 1887. Etudes sur le terrain houiller de Commentry: lithologie et stratigraphie (Vol.
1). impr. de Théolier.
2.3.3 ELEMENTS OF MANAGEMENT
He stated that there were six sets of activities that every organization carries viz., of
technical, commercial, financial, security accounting and managerial activities. Fayol
identified five elements of management or managerial functions. They are: planning,
organizing, commanding, co-coordinating and controlling. Let us examine these functions
briefly.
Planning: Fayol used the French term Prevoyance to denote ‘foresee’, to ‘anticipate’ and to
‘make plans’. The administration’s chief manifestation and most effective instrument, to
28
MPA-102/OSOU
Fayol, is the plan of action. Planning enables the separation of the short-run events from the
long-range considerations. To him, unity, continuity, flexibility and precision are the broad
features of good plan of action.
Organization: To organize an industrial firm or a government agency is to provide it with
everything required for its functioning: raw material, tools, capitals, personnel, etc. Fayol
classifies these activities into two categories: the material organization, and the human
organization. The human organization includes personnel, leadership and organization
structure.
Command: To Fayol, the art of command rests on certain personal qualities and knowledge
of the general principles of management and the manager of the organization should emulate
the necessary qualities.
Coordination: To Fayol, it consists of working together and ‘harmonizing’ all activities and
efforts so as to facilitate the functioning of the organization. Essentially, the objective of
coordination is to ensure that one department’s efforts are coincident with the efforts of other
departments, and keeping all activities in perspective with regard to the overall aims of the
organization.
Control: its objective is to obtain conformity with the plan adopted, the instructions issued
and principles established. In the process, weakness and errors have to be rectified and their
recurrence prevented. For control to be effective it must be done within a reasonable time and
be followed by by sanctions. Fayol uses the term control in the wider sense of watch,
monitor, check, and audit and obtains feedback.
2.3.4 PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION
Henry Fayol’s fourteen (14) principles of organization are considered as the major
contribution of Fayol to the field of administration. Fayol states that the principles of
administration/management are not rigid. On the contrary, they must be capable of adaption
to various enterprises and settings. These principles are also known as ‘General Principles of
Organization’. Let us discuss these principles in some detail.
1. Division of work: Fayol believes that segregating work in the workforce amongst the
worker will enhance the quality of the product. To him, as the society grows, new organs
develop destined to replace the single one performing all functions in the primitive state.
The object of division of work is to produce more and better work with same effort.
Division of work permits of reduction in the number of objects to which attention and
effort must be directed and has been recognized as the best means of making use of
individuals and groups of people. It is not merely applicable to technical work, but
without exception to all work involving a more or less considerable number of people and
demanding abilities of various types, and it results in specialization of functions and
separation of powers.
2. Authority: Authority is the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience.
Distinction must be made between a manager’s official authority deriving from office and
personal authority, compounded of intelligence, experience, moral worth, ability to lead,
past services, etc. In the makeup of a good head personal authority is the indispensable
29
MPA-102/OSOU
complement of official authority. Responsibility is a corollary of authority, it is its natural

consequence and essential counterpart, and wheresoever’s authority is exercised
responsibility arises. To Fayol, authority facilitates the management to work efficiently,
and responsibility makes them responsible for the work done under their guidance or
leadership.
3. Discipline: Discipline is in essence obedience in accordance with the standing
agreements between the firm and its employees. It is the outcome of different varying
agreements and diverse forms. Discipline is absolutely essential for the smooth running of
business and without discipline no enterprise could prosper. To Fayol ‘discipline
constitutes the chief strength of armies’; similarly the same aphorism applies equally to
all other organizations engaged in public service. Discipline has to be maintained all the
time. Discipline is what leaders make it and thus it depends essentially on the worthiness
of its leaders. To him, the ills of the organization mostly results from the inaptitude of the
leaders. He further says that, ‘it is incumbent upon managers at high levels as much as
upon humble employees, all the best means of establishing and maintain it are: (1) good
superiors at all levels, (2) agreements as clear and fair as possible, and sanctions
(penalties) judiciously applied.
4. Scalar Chain: The scalar or hierarchy is the chain of superiors ranging from the ultimate
authority to the lowest ranks. The line of authority is the route followed every link in the
chain- by all communications which start from or go to the ultimate authority. The line of
authority must be clearly outlined so that there is no confusion from top to bottom and
vice versa. This is necessary so that every employee knows their immediate senior also
they should be able to contact any, if needed.
But it is felt that the principle of scalar chain will lead to unnecessary delays, causes red-
tapism ad consequently results the practices of corruption. As a panacea to avoid delays
Fayol has suggested the concept of ‘Gangplank’. Gangplank refers ‘level jumping in a
hierarchical line of authority structures or a arrangement in which two managers working
at the same level can communicate with each other directly for quick communication.
Although he places emphasis on formal organization, he is alive to the dangers of
conformity to hierarchy and formalism. It is an error to depart needlessly from the line of
authority, but is even greater one to keep it when detrimental to the business, asserts
Fayol. He illustrates the problem with reference to the figure given below.
A
B L
C M
D N
E O
F……………………………P
G Q
If ‘F’ follows the principles of proper channel of communication, he has to send his
message or file to ‘P’ through ‘E’, ‘D’ and so on, covering nine levels. It is, however,
possible for ‘F’ to use ‘gangplank’ and avoid going through ‘A’ and all the other
intervening layers as intermediaries. Recourse to the ‘gangplank’ is possible only when
30
MPA-102/OSOU
the immediate superiors (in the case, ‘E’ and ‘O’) authorize such a relationship.
Whenever a disagreement develops between ‘F’ and ‘P’ they must turn the matter to their
superiors. While suggesting the ‘gangplank’, Fayol is rather cautious. He feels that it may
be less relevant to government agencies in which the lines of authority are less clear than
in private organization.
5. Unity of Command: Fayol believes that for any action whatsoever, as employee should
receive orders from one superior only. Such is the rule of unity of command, arising from
general and ever-present necessity and wielding an influence on the conduct of affairs.
“Should it be violated, authority is undermined, discipline is in jeopardy, order disturbed
and stability threatened”. This rule seems fundamental to Fayol. He says, “as soon as two
superiors wield their authority over the same person or department, uneasiness makes
itself felt and should the cause persist, the disorder increases, the malady takes on the
appearance of an animal organism troubled by a foreign body, and the following
consequences are to be observed: either the dual command ends in disappearance or
elimination one of the superiors and organic well-being is restored, or else the organism
continues to wither away.
6. Centralization and Decentralization: Concentration of authority at the central level is
centralization and whereas dispersal of authority and responsibility at lower level is
decentralization. According to Fayol, the question centralization or decentralization, is a
simple question of proportion, it is a matter of finding the optimum degree for the
particular concern. In small organizations or firms, where the manager’s orders go
directly to subordinates, there is absolute centralization; in large organizations or
concerns, where a long scalar chain is interposed between manager and lower grades,
orders and counter-information, too, have to go through a series of intermediaries. The
degree of centralization must vary according to different cases. The objective to pursue is
the optimum utilization of all faculties of personnel. Everything which goes to increase
the importance of the subordinate’s role is decentralization; everything which goes to
reduce it is centralization.
7. Unity of direction: All those engaged in the same activity should have a unified goal. To
make the work easier and achieve the set goal easily, the persons working in an
organization should have one goal and motive. This principle is expressed as: one head
and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective. It is the condition
essential to unity of action, coordination of strength and focusing of effort. A body with
two heads is in the social as in the animal sphere a monster, and has difficulty in
surviving. Unity of direction must not be confused with unity of command. Unity of
command cannot exist without unity of direction, but does not flow from it.
8. Subordination of individual interest to the general interest: Workers/employees of an
organization ought to think of organizational good first before thinking themselves
individually. The principle lays that in an organization the interest of one employee or
group of employees should not prevail over the general good of the organization. The
organization managers/supervisors must emulate good behavior and stand as exemplary
to their subordinates. The managers/supervisors while dealing with their groups and
subordinates exhibit impartiality act judiciously and sacrifice some of their personal
interests to the interests of the organization and thus set an example to their
31
MPA-102/OSOU
subordinates/groups. As the people of a country, in its interest, sacrifices their personal

interests in the similar vein the higher authorities and subordinates of an organization
scarify their individual interest to the interests of the organization. Fayol opines that
ignorance, ambition, selfishness, laziness, weakness, and all human passions tend to cause
the general interest to be lost sight of in favour of individual interest and a perpetual
struggle has to be waged against them. For the achievement of organizational goals
require employees to surrender their personal interests to the interests of the organization.
To Fayol, this is again possible only when they exhibit:1) fairness and good example on
the part of supervisors, 2) agreements as fair as is possible; 3) constant supervision.
9. Remuneration: Remuneration of personnel is the price of services rendered. According
to Fayol, remuneration should be fair and, as far as is possible, afford satisfaction both to
employee and employer. The rate of remuneration depends, firstly, on circumstances
independent of the employer’s will and employee’s worth, viz. cost of living, abundance
or shortage of personnel, general business conditions, the economic position of the
business, and after that it depends on the value of the employee and the mode of payment
adopted. He further says that the method of payment shall: 1) assure fair remuneration;
2) encourage keenness by rewarding well-directed effort, and shall not lead to over-
payment going beyond reasonable limits. With reference to modes of payment of
remuneration to workers he suggests three modes viz, time rates, job rates and piece rates.
10. Order: Order must be maintained at all times. A place for everything and everything in
its place. The formula is the same for human order, “a place for everyone and everyone in
his place”. Perfect order presupposes a judiciously chosen place and the appearance of
order is merely a false or imperfect image of real order. A diagram representing the entire
premises divided up into as many sections as there are employees responsible facilitates
considerably the establishing and control of order. For social order to prevail in a concern
there must, in accordance with the definition, be in his appointed place. Perfect order
requires, further, that the place be suitable for the employee and the employee for the
place- in English idiom, “the right man in the right place.” Social order demands precise
knowledge of the human requirements and resources of the concern and a constant
balance between these requirements and resources.
11. Equity: For the personnel to be encouraged to carry out its duties with all the devotion
and loyalty of which it is capable it must be treated with kindliness. Justice is to be
prevailed at all costs and all are to be treated fairly and equally. Equity results from the
combination of kindliness and justice. Equity excludes neither forcefulness nor sternness
and the application of it requires much good sense, experience and good nature. Desire
for equity and equality of treatment are aspirations to be taken into account in dealing
with employees. In order to satisfy the principle of equity, the head of the business or
organization should strive to instill sense of equity throughout all levels of the scalar
chain.
12. Stability of tenure: A stable tenure for security of job and peace of mind of worker is
required to enable the worker comfortable to do his job. Time is required for an employee
to get used to new work and succeed in doing it well, assuming that he possesses the
requisite abilities. For anyone who joins in an organization and to prove one’s abilities
and efficiency requires time. Frequent changes of persons and place of work results for
32
MPA-102/OSOU
the undesirable consequences of such insecurity if tenure is especially to be feared in

large concerns, where the settling in of managers is generally a lengthy matter. Much time
is needed indeed to get to know men and things in a large concern in order to be in a
position to decide on a plan of action, to gain confidence in oneself and inspire it in
others.
13. Initiative: It postulates that all initiatives and ideas that contribute to the good of the
organization need to be encouraged and considered. Fayol understood the importance of
good ideas to the growth and success of organizations. To him thinking out a plan and
ensuring its success is one of the keenest satisfactions for an intelligent man to
experience. Fayol calls this power of thinking out and executing as initiative. He further
says at all levels of organizational ladder zeal and energy on the part of employees needs
to be augmented by initiative. For this it requires much tact and some integrity to inspire
and maintain everyone’s initiative, within the limits imposed, by respect for authority and
for discipline.
14. Esprit de corps: it means ‘unity is strength’. Harmony, union among the personnel of a
concern, is great strength in that concern. For this he suggested to make efforts to
establish it. To Fayol, among the countless methods in use, he says he will single out one
principle to be observed and two pitfalls to be avoided. The principle to be observed is
unity of command; and dangers to be avoided are (1) a misguided interpretation of the
motto ‘divide and rule’ and (2) the abuse of written communications. Under the first
category of dangers, Fayol is of the opinion that personnel must not be split up. To him,
dividing enemy forces to weaken them is clever, but dividing one’s own team is a grave
sin against the business. Further, in dealing with business matters or giving an order
which requires explanation to complete it, usually it is simpler and quicker to do so
verbally than in writing. To Fayol misunderstandings grow bitterer in writing and hence
whenever possible contacts should be verbal; there is a gain in speed, clarity and
harmony. Hence, feeling of team work, loyalty and integrity between employees towards
themselves and the organization as a whole at all times and all means to be employed to
promote the same.
2.3.5 CRITICAL ESTIMATION
There is a severe criticism on the Fayol’s theory of functionalism for its narrow focus,
mechanical approach and neglect of complex factors affecting human behavior in the
organization. It is opined that though Fayol has devoted considerable attention to functional
classification, but he neglected the structural aspect and his treatment of organization was
considered defective. Peter Drucker, a major critic of Fayolism, observes that some of the
worst mistakes of organization-building have been committed by imposing a mechanistic
model of an ideal or universal organization on a living business. It is also observed that there
is a lot of overlapping in the 14 principles enunciated by Fayol. Further, the theory of Fayol
is criticized as formal and vague, because some of the concepts explained by him are found to
be vague and there is lot of inconsistency in the principles. It is said that the principles of
administration are based on personal experience and limited observations and lacks
33
MPA-102/OSOU
comprehensiveness. On the whole his proposition is viewed as pro-management bias and not
paid adequate attentions to the workers.
2.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN TAYLOR AND FAYOL
Both, F.W Taylor and Henry Fayol have common ideas to share. Both the writers have
aimed at enhancing the efficiency levels of the organizations and formulated the principles
accordingly. The principles formulated by Taylor are known as the ‘principles of scientific
management while principles of Fayol are known as the ‘general principles of management
or administration’. Both have common agreement on certain principles like division of work,
specialization, responsibilities of managers, unity within the group etc. Though the principles
formulated by both of them intended to enhance a positive workplace, but there are
significant differences between the two theories. The key difference between Taylor
principles of management and Fayol principles of management is that Taylor principles
consider the workflows and operator efficiency levels in an organization whereas, Fayol
principles of management theory consider top management approach to resolve problems.
Taylor principles of management consider employee efficiency, whereas Fayol principles of
management consider human and behavioural determinants of the organization. Fayol
principles of management emphasize on activities like planning and controlling, whereas
Taylor principles of management emphasize on work study and time of study of workers.
Moreover, Fayol principles put more emphasis on top management point of view on
resolving problems, whereas Taylor principles emphasize low-level management in an
organization. However, Fayol principles can be applied to any organization; because it is
universally applicable, but Taylor principles are applied only to specialized organizations like
production and engineering.
2.5 CONCLUSION
Both F.W Taylor and Henry Fayol are regarded as the pioneers in the study of human
beings at work. Both Taylor and Fayol have contributed significantly to the development of
science of management. Their contribution are regarded as complementary in the field of
science of management and both of them realized that problem of personnel and its
management at all levels is the key to individual success. Both, Taylor and Fayol have
applied scientific methods to the study of management and organisation and hence Taylor is
known as father of ‘scientific management, while Fayol is widely regarded father of modern
management’. Main aim of Taylor was to improve labour productivity and to eliminate all
type of waste through standardization of work and tools where as Fayol attempted to develop
a universal theory of management and stressed upon the need for teaching the theory of
management. Both the thinkers have emphasized mutual co-operation between employer and
employees. Fayol’s theory is more widely applicable than that of Taylor, although Taylor’s
philosophy has undergone a big change under the influence of modern development, but
Fayol’s principles of management have stood the test of time and are still being accepted as
the core of management theory. Fayol’s management theories mostly developed in the early
34
MPA-102/OSOU
1900’s was a major influence on the development of industrial management practice

throughout the twentieth century.
However, Taylor was the first person to initiate the quest for better performance at
work. He was also the first to apply quantitative techniques to the study of industrial
management. Modern scientific management, operations research, method study, time study,
systems analysis, management by exception, etc., are all a part of Taylor’s heritage. It was
mainly on account of his pioneering efforts that management came to be regarded as an
academic discipline. Apart from the United States, Taylor’s influence was felt in countries
like France, Switzerland and the USSR.
2.6 KEY CONCEPTS
1. Soldering: Willful avoidance of work, tendency to restrict the operations due to

personal factors.
2. Piece rate system: The payment to be paid to the each unit of work to be done
regardless of time.
3. Mental revolution: It is a transformation in the attitude of both management and
workers.
4. Esprit de corps: Union is strength
5. Scalar chain: Line of authority, chain of superiors ranging from the ultimate authority
to the lowest ranks.
6. Gang Plank: To avoid delays, it is an arrangement of direct contact between two
employees of equal cadre in the hierarchy of organization where the line of authority
is followed in the normal course of time.
2.7 ACTIVITIES
1. Taylor, in his observation noticed the phenomenon of workers purposely operating

below their capacity and called it as soldering or skiving. Identify the reasons for such
phenomenon.
2. Taylor, as against the principle of Unity of Command of Fayol suggested the concept
of ‘Functional Foremanship’. How can you support this argument?
3. Both F.W. Taylor and Henry Fayol have occupied a pivotal place in the organization
theory of administration. Identify the similarities and dissimilarities between these
thinkers in their propositions
4. According to the concept of Mental Revolution of Taylor, there is no inherent conflict
in the interest of the employers, workers and consumers. Can you agree with the
justification of Taylor? If yes what is the justification given by the Taylor?
2.8 REFERECE AND FURTHER READINGS
 D.S Pugh (Ed), Organization Theory, Penguin books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex,

England, 1971
35
MPA-102/OSOU
 D.Ravindra Prasad, V.S.Prasad, P.Satyanarayana, Y.Parthasaradhi (Ed),

Administrative Thinkers, sterling Publishers, U.P, India, 2017
 Alka Dhameja & Swetha Mishra (Ed), Public Administration: Approaches and
Applications, Pearson, Delhi, Chennai, 2016
 Andrea Gabor, “The Capitalist Philosophers: The Genius of Modern Business”,
Crown Business, 2000.
36
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-3 KARL MARX &MAX WEBER (1864-1920)
Structure
3.1 Introduction: Karl Marx
3.1.1 Life and works
3.2 Origins of Bureaucracy
3.3 Bureaucracy as an Exploitative Instrument
3.4 Hegel’s Universalistic Emphasis
3.4.1 Theory of Alienation
3.4.2 Proletariat’s Alienation from Bureaucracy
3.4.3 Weber’s Rational and Marx’s Class Approaches to Bureaucracy
3.5 Max Weber
3.6 Life and Works
3.7 Methodology
3.8 Rationalisation
3.9 Ideal Type Bureaucracy
3.10 Critique of Weberian Model
3.11 Conclusion
3.12 Activities
After reading this Unit, You should be able to:

 Marx’s Life and works
 Understand the Bureaucracy of Marxist Perspective
 Understand the clear concept of Weber’s idea on Bureaucracy
 Understand the Marx concept
3.1 INTRODUCTION: KARL MARX
Marxism, based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has a profound
influence on all social science disciplines. Marx is considered, along with Emile Durkheim
and Max Weber, as the three principal architects of modern social sciences. Karl Marx, a
philosopher, economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist, and
revolutionary unraveled the working of economic and political system within which modern
organisations function. His ideas are the foundation of modern communism. No other thinker
has as much influence as Karl Marx on the twentieth century mind. His works inspired the
foundations of many regimes of the world. No debate on state, society and administration in
social sciences, therefore, is complete without a discussion on Marx and his impact. Outside
his economic theories, Marx’s main contribution to the social sciences has been his theory of
historical materialism. His concept of historical materialism is considered an attempt at
unifying all social sciences into a single science of society. Human beings cannot survive
37
MPA-102/OSOU
without social organization. In each mode of production, a given set of relations of

production constitutes the basis (infrastructure) on which is erected a complex superstructure,
encompassing the state and the law, ideology, religion, philosophy, the arts, morality, etc. His
philosophy provides deeper insights into the working of modern organizations.
Administrative organization, of which bureaucracy is a part, is not just a twentieth

century phenomenon. It existed in elaborate forms even thousands of years ago in Egypt and
Rome, and, in rather sophisticated forms, in China and India in ancient times. In
contemporary society, the institution has assumed a special dimension. For some writers it is
this institution that epitomises modern era.
3.1.1 LIFE AND WORKS
Karl Heinrich Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in the city of Trier in West Germany. He
studied at the University of Berlin where he was introduced to Hegelian philosophy. He was
politically a rebellious student. In April 1841, he received his doctorate from the University
of Jena. His thesis analysed the difference between natural philosophies of Democritus and
Epicurus. In 1848, he went to Paris where he participated in the revolution and in 1849 he
was expelled from Paris. He went to London in August 1849, where he stayed till his death
on March 14, 1883. Marx authored several books including Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of
Right (1844), The Holy Family (1844) (with Fredrick Engels), Theses of Feuerbach (1845),
The German Ideology (with Engels), The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), The Communist
Manifesto (1848),
Wage, Labour and Capital (1849), The Class Struggles in France (1850), The Eighteenth
Brunaire of Louis Bonaparte (1850), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
(1859). The first Volume of Capital, his most important work, which remained incomplete
due to ill health, was published in 1867. The second and third volumes of Capital were
revised and published by Engels in 1885 and 1894.
3.2 ORIGINS OF BUREAUCRACY
In Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engel’s theory of historical materialism, the historical
origin of bureaucracy is to be found in four sources: religion, the formation of the state,
commerce, and technology. Thus, the earliest bureaucracies consisted of castes of religious
clergy, officials and scribes operating various rituals, and armed functionaries specifically
delegated to keep order. In the historical transition from primitive egalitarian communities to
a civil society divided into social classes and estates, beginning from about 10,000 years ago,
authority is increasingly centralised, and enforced by a state apparatus existing separately
from society. The state formulates, imposes and enforces laws, and levies taxes, giving rise to
an officialdom enacting these functions. Thus, the state mediates in conflicts among the
people and keeps those conflicts within acceptable bounds; it also organises the defense of
territory. Most importantly, the right of ordinary people to carry and use weapons of force
38
MPA-102/OSOU
becomes increasingly restricted; in civil society, forcing other people to do things becomes
increasingly the legal right of the state authorities only.
But, the growth of trade and commerce adds a new dimension to bureaucracy, insofar as it
requires the keeping of accounts and the processing/recording of transactions, as well as the
enforcement of legal rules governing trade. If resources are increasingly distributed by prices
in markets, this requires extensive and complex systems of record-keeping, management and
calculation, conforming to legal standards. Eventually, this means that the total amount of
work involved in commercial administration outgrows the total amount of work involved in
government administration. In modern capitalist society, private sector bureaucracy is larger
than government bureaucracy, if measured by the number of administrative workers in the
division of labour as a whole. Some corporations nowadays have a turnover larger than the
national income of whole countries, with large administration supervising operations.
A fourth source of bureaucracy the Marxists have commented on inheres in the

technologies of mass production, which require many standardised routines and procedures.
Even if people are replaced by machines, people are still necessary to design, control,
supervise and operate the machinery. The technologies chosen may not be the ones that are
best for everybody, but which create incomes for a particular class of people or maintain their
power. This type of bureaucracy, often called a technocracy, owes its power to control over
specialised technical knowledge or control over critical information.
3.3 BUREAUCRACY AS AN EXPLOITATIVE INSTRUMENT
Karl Marx looks upon bureaucracy as an integral part of the exploitative social system.
He formed his theory of bureaucracy on the basis of his personal experience of the
malfunctioning of state administration at the time of the Moselle district famine. He deduces
the notion of bureaucracy from the relationships existing between the power-holding
institutions and social groups subordinated to them. In an exploitative society like the
capitalist one, bureaucracy gets ingrained in the society and acts as a mechanism for
perpetuation of exploitation. For Marx, abolition of the state will be achieved institutionally
by the destruction of the bureaucratic apparatus and the bureaucratic dimension of political
reality provides a yardstick for the assessment of different political structures. Marx
emphasises the importance of understanding bureaucracy both functionally and historically.
For him, bureaucracy is central to the understanding of the modern state. It is generally held
that bureaucracy is subsumed in Marx’s macro theorisation of the capitalist state. Since it is
the political expression of the division of labour it has to be explained not only in functional
but also in structural terms. He uses allusions to Feuerbach’s transformative criticism stating
that under bureaucracy the human subject becomes a mere object of manipulation. What
‘fetishism of commodities’ is to economics, bureaucracy is to politics.
Marx never wrote on bureaucracy, as did Weber, although he did not overlook the
significance of bureaucracy in modern society. Incidentally, after taking over as Chief Editor
of Die Rheinische Zeitung Marx wrote articles in the newspapers on the free press and state
censorship and on the law of the thefts of woods. He spoke of the repressive character of the
39
MPA-102/OSOU
bureaucracy’s censorship of the press. He regarded censorship as a bureaucratic instrument

for maintaining politics as a reserved domain of a particular class. Marx’s reflections on
bureaucracy were first found in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right in which he
viewed bureaucracy as the institutional incarnation of political alienation. Since it
institutionalises the inverted nature of the modern state, where everything, according to Marx,
looks different from its true character, bureaucracy can be abolished only when the state
becomes the real representative of general interest. As Marx developed his concept of
bureaucracy through his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, it seems useful to briefly
recall Hegel’s views on bureaucracy as a backdrop for the study of Karl Marx’s approach to
bureaucracy to gather the thread of Marx’s thought on bureaucracy.
3.4 HEGEL’S UNIVERSALISTIC EMPHASIS
Hegel, like Marx, does not deal with bureaucracy as such. Their interest in bureaucracy
grew out of their larger interest in the nature of the state. The state, for Hegel, is the last
development in a series of rational social orders, the other two being the family and the civil
society. Once the state is produced it is supposed to provide the grounds where the
unconscious and particularly oriented activities become gradually self-conscious and public
spirited. For Hegel, the prince, the bureaucrats and the deputies of the estates are political
actors’ par excellence.
Hegel finds in the society the existence of three classes viz., the agricultural class, the
business class, and the universal class, each of which reflects three modes of consciousness,
conservatism, individualism and universalism respectively. He distinguishes between civil
society and the state on the ground that the former represents the general interest and the
latter, the particular interest. Bureaucracy plays the role of a link between the civil society
and the state. It is what Avineri, while explaining Hegel’s views, has called “the paradigm of
meditation” between the particular and the general, and between the civil society and the
state. Hegel says that “the universal class (bureaucracy) has, for its task, the universal interest
of the community”. Bureaucracy is a ‘universal estate’ which sees to “the maintenance of the
general state interest and of legality”. It is to be mentioned that bureaucracy represents the
universal interest not because of the negative universality of their wants, but because of the
positive universality of what they already have, the state itself. Hegel says that the universal
class should not be misunderstood as the ‘unhappy consciousness’ suffering from a sense of
estrangement from its own product. They are, on the contrary, a ‘self-satisfied consciousness’
which understands and accepts the world as world.
Regulatory Mechanism
Hegel believes that the universal insight and will are not the property of the bureaucrats as
individuals but of bureaucracy which is a system of relations defined by hierarchy and
specialisation plus a certain position in a large ensemble. The self-seeking orientation and
instability of the middle class from which the bureaucrats are recruited, do not stand in the
way of bureaucracy because on their recruitment they become a part of the bureaucratic
system. They also submit themselves to a series of internal and external pressures which
40
MPA-102/OSOU
educate them to the will and knowledge of the universal interest. The internal control refers to
the bureaucratic ethos which is the result of bureaucratic habits plus the motivation that
accompany the fulfillment of the bureaucratic duties. The external mechanisms of control
include control from above by the prince as well as from below in the form of grievances, and
petitions by corporations, free press and public opinion. Thus Hegel has given us an outline
of regulatory mechanism which has a good effect on the bureaucrats.
Hegel was looking for a sphere which transcends private interests. Avineri says the
Hegel’s attempt is “similar to the Platonic Endeavour but while Plato tried to neutralise
Guardians totally from civil society by depriving them of family and private property,
Hegel’s solution is less radical….” It is necessary to mention that Hegel’s attempt to provide
for checks and balances indicate his awareness that bureaucracy may view itself as owning
the state and encroach upon the rights of the people. He regards bureaucracy as “the
embodiment of the ideas” and by virtue of its autonomy and independence, will act as a brake
on the civil society itself and ensure that public policy does not become a reflection of the
social society. Evidently, Hegel does not regard bureaucracy as a social category with
distinctive characteristics. Hagedus says that Hegel refers to “the officials and functionaries
as those who acted on behalf of the enlightened ruler, or, later, on behalf of the constitutional
monarchy, the state of reasons”.8 It seems also clear that Hegel explains bureaucracy from
what may be called the Weberian perspective because he, like Weber, associates such
qualities as dispassionateness, uprightness and politeness with bureaucracy.
Hegel’s Impact on Marx

The Hegelian concept of bureaucracy representing the general interest of the community has
not been accepted by Marx although he agrees with Hegel that the rational state should
represent the general interests of the community. But he feels that the existing state does not
represent the general interest and for Marx, the prominence of bureaucracy may be attributed
to it. It is significant to note that Hegel’s notion of the universal class influenced many early
writings of Marx in which he uses the term ‘proletariat’ possessing the qualities of the
universal class.
Early Formulations
When Marx was making a critical appraisal of Hegel’s theory of bureaucracy in 1843, the
term itself did not figure prominently in serious political writings. It is Marx who must be
credited with attempting an analysis of bureaucracy in substantive terms, in the sense of a
social category. Bureaucracy, in the sense of a ruling formation of some kind, first appeared
in a Germany book by C. J. Krans (1808). By the term ‘bureaucratic’ he meant a stratum
which ruled Prussia. It had earlier been put to use in a German periodical with regard to the
French Revolutionary Development after 1879. The Brochans Encyclopedia of 1819
recognised it, and the German publicist, J. J. Corres popularised the term in the 1820s. Young
Marx was reported to have been acquainted with these writings.
Marx came out with his first explicit attack on bureaucracy in 1843. He complained of
the ‘presumptious officiousness’ of government officials and ‘the contradiction’ between the
real nature of the world and that ascribed to it in Biuros. Marx was interested in explaining
41
MPA-102/OSOU
how bureaucracy emerged and drew its sustenance from the society and how it reflected the
production relations at a time when it worked. It was not the structure of bureaucracy but its
content that merited his attention. For Marx, bureaucracy is “a particular closed society
within the state”. There are three basic elements in Marx’s perception of state. Firstly, state is
an organ of class domination. Secondly, its aim is to create an order which legalises and
perpetuates the oppression of one class by moderating conflicts. Thirdly, state is a temporary
phenomenon; it will wither away with the abolition of classes. Bureaucracy refers to all the
elements in the hierarchical system as outlined by Hegel including the collegial advisory
boards. In Marx’s usage it embraces both the system of administration and the persons who
are charged with the implementation of that system.
Parasitic Role of Bureaucracy

Marx considers the objective political system as the product of the producing activities
of the totality of men in society. It may be recalled here that in the Preface to A Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx wrote that he was convinced from his early
work on the critique of Hegel that law and state were neither autonomous nor were they the
products of human mind. It is “the material conditions of life” from which law and state
originate. It is applicable to the prince whose position is to be seen as a product, not of nature,
but of social consent, and to the bureaucracy and the state. It is the productive activity which
is of pivotal significance for human affairs. According to Marx, the mode of production
should not be viewed “simply as reproduction of the physical existence of individuals”. To
quote him:
‘Rather it is a definite form of their activity, a definite way of expressing their life. As
individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with what they
produce and how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material
conditions which determine their production’.
Marx believes that “the social structure and the state continually evolve out of the life
process of definite individuals, but individuals not as they appear in their own or other
people’s imagination, but rather, as they really are….” The bearers of the relations of
production are social classes. Within each mode of production there are two social classes,
one which owns the means of production, and the other which does not. In class-society,
Marx denies bureaucracy an organic position because it is not directly connected with the
production processes. He calls bureaucracy ‘parasites’ designed to maintain status quo and
the privileges of the dominant section of the society.
Bureaucrat’s Private Ends

State power plays the same role for the bureaucracy as the private property does for
property-owning class. To quote Marx, “bureaucracy holds in its essence of the state, the
spiritual essence of the society, it is its private property.”It, to borrow Marx’s phrases,
“constitutes the imaginary state besides the real state, and is the spiritualism of the state”.
Further, “In the case of individual bureaucrat, the state objective turns into his private
objective, into chasing after higher posts, the making of a career”. It may be remembered here
for Marx, the state is not, as with Hegel, logically prior to, and ethically superior to its
42
MPA-102/OSOU
constituent elements, the family and civil society. It is an illusion to suppose that the state has
a universal character capable of harmonising the discordant elements of civil society and
uniting them on a higher level. In his The German Ideology, Marx traces the origin of the
state together with social institutions to the division of labour. In the course of history each
method of production gives rise to a typical political organisation furthering the interests of
the dominant class. Thus the state, as Marx writes, “Is the form in which the individuals of a
ruling class assert their common interests”. Marx considers bureaucracy, as an instrument of
exploitation in the state, to be the main function which consists in exploiting the affairs of the
community in such a manner as to promote and sustain its private ends. It does not instill
public spirit in the social body through its influence on and dialogue with the corporations. It
attempts to ‘privatise’ the civil society as a whole.
The Deliberate Mysteriousness

In order to achieve its objective of “privatising” the civil society, bureaucracy presents
the affairs of the state to the outsiders in the garb of secrecy. As Marx says, “The general
spirit of the bureaucracy is the secret, the mystery….” It is afraid of conducting the affairs of
the state in public, and considers political consciousness “as treason against its mystery”.
“Authority is the principle of its knowledge, and the deification of authoritarianism is its
credo,” Marx adds. The majority of people look at bureaucracy with awe and veneration and
as a mysterious and distant entity. The spirit of mystery is safeguarded within itself by
hierarchy and outside by its nature as a closed corporation. Thus, the masses get alienated.
The bureaucrats also develop in them a sense of alienation because they fail to understand the
parasitic and oppressive nature of the job.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy
Marx has put forward some of the basic features that characterise the bureaucracy as
division of labour, hierarchy, training, rules, etc., which are discussed.
Division of Labour
Marx agrees that the division of labour makes the organisation of capitalist society
highly productive. However, he points out that the basic division of labour which we intend
to overlook is between ‘intellectual and material activity’. While the workers perform the
productive activity, the capitalists and bureaucrats perform only the intellectual activity.
Hence, all the hard work falls on the workers in the name of division of labour. Further, the
gains of higher productivity go mostly to the capitalists who share these to some extent with
the bureaucracy, as indicated by the bureaucracy’s higher salaries. So far as the workers are
concerned, higher productivity tends to lead to higher unemployment among them, as it
happens when high technology is introduced. Increased unemployment tends to lower wages
also. Hence, increased productivity due to heightened division of labour may lead to little
gain for the workers.
Hierarchy
The safeguards referred to by Hegel in the form of external and internal control do not,
according to Marx, prevent bureaucracy from furthering private ambitions of individual
careerism. The hierarchy of bureaucracy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The apex entrusts the
43
MPA-102/OSOU
lower circles with insights into the individual while the lower circles have insights into the
universal to the apex. To quote Marx:
‘The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy
of knowledge - the top entrusts the understanding of the lower levels, whilst the lower levels
credit the top with understanding of the general, and so, all area mutually deceived’.
The hierarchical structure of bureaucracy is no safeguard because “the oppositionist is

itself tied hand and feet….where is the protection against the bureaucracy?” Further, to be
sure that lesser evil (bureaucratic abuse) is abolished by greater (hierarchy) in so far as it
disappears to make way for it, Marx rejects the view that any safeguard can be made to
depend on the human qualities of the officials themselves. He observes: “The human being as
the official will protect the official against himself: What a unity that is!”
Training
Hegel argues that liberal education humanises civil servants. However, Marx maintains
that the mechanical character of a civil servants work and the compulsions of office lead to
his dehumanisation. Marx is also critical of the recruitment of members of the bureaucracy
through competitive examinations. He says that members of a bureaucracy need
statesmanship which cannot be tested through an examination: “One does not hear that the
Greek or Roman statesmen passed examinations.”
Marx’s class analysis would indicate that the main function of examinations is to ensure
that only persons of the upper class who can afford the costly higher education are able to
enter the bureaucracy. Apart from being costly, higher education inculcates values and
attitudes which are supportive of capitalism. Higher education tends to create social distance
between the rich and the poor; highly educated people generally think they are a class apart.
Hence, if a highly educated person is appointed as a manager, the exploitation of workers
does not hurt him.
Rules
Marx points out those bureaucratic minds that are so bound insubordination and passive
obedience that they come to think that adherence to rules is an end in itself, and not merely a
means to an end. They come to attach more importance to rules than to human beings.
“Actual knowledge seems devoid of content, just as social life seems dead.”
3.4.1 THEORY OF ALIENATION
Marx’s, Theory of Alienation is the contention that in modern industrial production

under capitalist conditions workers will inevitably lose control of their lives by losing control
over their work. Workers thus cease to be autonomous beings in any significant sense. Under
pre capitalist conditions a blacksmith, e.g., or a shoemaker would own his own shop, set his
own hours, determine his own working conditions, shape his own product, and have some say
in how his product is bartered or sold. His relationships with the people with whom he
worked and dealt had a more or less personal character. Under the conditions of modern
44
MPA-102/OSOU
factory production, by contrast, the average worker is not much more than a replaceable cog
in a gigantic and impersonal production apparatus. Where armies of hired operatives perform
monotonous and closely supervised tasks, workers have essentially lost control over the
process of production, over the products which they produce, and over the relationships they
have with each other. As a consequence they have become estranged from their very human
nature, which Marx understood to be free and productive activity. Human beings cannot be
human under these conditions, and for this reason the implication was obvious for Marx:
capitalism has to be abolished as much as any political oppression if a society’s emancipation
is to be complete. Capitalism is just as incompatible with self-determination as absolute
monarchy or any other autocratic system. But while an absolute monarchy limits people’s
autonomy by controlling them in the sphere of politics, capitalism does so by controlling their
workplaces and their economic life. A society of truly free citizens, according to Marx, must,
therefore, not only be a political, but also an economic and social democracy.
The most basic form of workers’ alienation is their estrangement from the process of
their work. An artist, unlike an industrial worker, typically works under his or her own
direction; artists are in total control of their work. That is why artists usually do not mind
working long hours and even under adverse conditions, because their creative work is
inherently meaningful, and an expression of their most personal desires and intuitions. Even
the typical medieval artisan, although more closely motivated by economic needs, usually
worked as a relatively independent person controlling his own shop and up to a point
choosing his own projects.
The Marxist concept of alienation applies equally to the proletariat and the bureaucracy.
According to Marx, alienation has four main aspects when it comes to administrative theory:
loss of freedom, loss of creativity, loss of humanity and loss of morality.
Loss of Freedom
Wherever there is exploitation, the exploiters as well as the exploited suffer from
alienation. Therefore, all the members of the organisation suffer from alienation. Thus
workers are under compulsion to take up jobs; they can no longer function as independent
artisans. Once they have accepted the jobs, they are under the authoritarian command of the
management. They are coerced, controlled and threatened with punishment. The managers
also suffer from alienation since they are themselves employees. The capitalist also loses his
freedom. Marx says that the capitalist is not free to eat, drink, buy books or go to the theatre,
or even to think, love, theorise, sing, paint, etc., as he wishes. He is constrained by the nature
of his business.
Loss of Creativity
The nature of bureaucracy interferes with the creativity of its members. Such
interference is sometimes called a dysfunction. Thus division of labour interferes with
creativity and no worker produces the whole product. He will have no job satisfaction.
Hierarchy also has the result that no worker can say that he independently produced anything.
The worker himself becomes a mere tool. Rules ensure that workers are all the time under
detailed control. The administrator also loses his creativity. For this reason alone, the
45
MPA-102/OSOU
administration in Public Administration is anonymous. Even policy-making has to be done

jointly. Even if an administrator is responsible for drawing up a certain policy, he cannot take
credit for it.
Loss of Humanity
In modern large-scale organisations, workers tend to function like machines, thereby
losing their humanity. Due to division of labour most of them have no part in deciding the
objectives of the organisation. The office is also structured like a big machine and suffers
from lack of humanity. The managers are in a similar situation, for, they are also part of a
machine-like structure. Human values do not play any role in the functioning of bureaucracy.
Loss of Morality
According to Marx, loss of freedom and humanity necessarily leads to loss of
morality. Thus, it is immoral to take away the freedom of workers and convert them into near
animals. Loss of creativity also leads to immorality. If engineers or doctors are more
interested in making money than in building safe bridges or in curing patients they become
immoral. Loss of humanity, in the sense of being insensitive to the suffering of others, is
certainly unethical.
3.4.2 PROLETARIAT’S ALIENATION FROM BUREAUCRACY
To Marx, bureaucracy symbolises alienation for the toiling masses. This alienation
has two implications. In the first place, it implies that the abolition of the state precedes the
destruction of the bureaucratic apparatus. In The Eighteenth Brumaire, Marx suggests that
unlike the previous revolutions that had wrestled against the control of bureaucracy, the
proletariat must smash the institution itself. In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels observe that it
is the teaching of the commune that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready–
made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes”. Secondly, it implies that it is the
extent of bureaucratisation which determines the amount of violence required to overthrow
the political system of a given society. In the bureaucratic countries of Europe, Marx writes,
“the task of the proletarian revolution will be, no longer, as before, to transfer the
bureaucratic machine from one hand to another, but to smash it”.
Marx does not agree with Hegel that bureaucracy has the will of the universal that
other groups lack. Perez-Diaj sums up Marx’s views: “Hierarchical and functional
differentiation results in a mere juxtaposition and mutual enforcement of incompetence, of
the superior who does not know the specifics of the case, of the inferior who does not know
the general principles of everyone, who does not get a lack of the ensemble of the situation”.
The external relations of bureaucracy are often intrinsic and conflictual in nature. It has a
corporate particular interest to defend against other particular corporations and classes of
society and other political forces of similar character. In order to prove his thesis that
bureaucracy lacks both the spirit and will of the universal, Marx argued that inside
bureaucracy the manipulation of information and other resources are done in such a manner
46
MPA-102/OSOU
that they can be used for the realisation of private ambitions and promote individual
careerism.
Dispersed Peasantry as a Base for Bureaucracy’s Growth

The dispersed peasantry, for Marx, forms the ideal soil for the growth of bureaucracy. He
says:
‘By its nature, small holding property forms a stable basis for an all-powerful and
innumerable bureaucracy. It creates a uniform level of relationships and persons over the
whole surface of the land. Hence, it also permits a uniform action from a supreme centre on
all points of this uniform mass. It annihilates the aristocratic intermediate grades between the
mass of the people and the state power. On all sides, therefore, it calls for the direct
interference of this state power and the interposition of its intermediate organs. Finally, it
produces an unemployed surplus population for which there is no place either on the land or
in the towns, and which accordingly reaches out for state offices as a sort of respectable alms,
and provokes the creation of state posts’.
In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852), Marx explained that in

France the suitable base for bureaucracy was provided by the mass of small peasant holders.
As there were no intermediate grades between it and the government, direct interference of
state power was called forth. He wrote that Louis Bonaparte was “forced to create an artificial
caste for which the maintenance of his regime becomes a bread-and-butter question.” He
further added that Bonapartism was “the only form of government possible at a time when
the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired the faculty of
ruling the nation.” Under Louis Napoleon, owing to the weakness of the bourgeoisie,
bureaucracy was able to control the state being more than a match for the isolated peasantry
that formed the basis of Bonaparte’s power. Bonaparte represents a class - the most numerous
class of French small holding property.
Eventual Withering Away of Bureaucracy

Marx is of the opinion that the society born out of the proletarian revolution will do
without bureaucracy. For him, “the abolition of bureaucracy is only possible by the general
interest actually - and not, as with Hegel, merely in thought, in abstraction – becoming the
particular interest which, in turn, is only possible as a result of the particular actually
becoming the general interest.” With the end of the state the nature of the state functions
undergoes a complete change. Marx wrote: “As soon as the goal of the proletarian movement,
the abolition of classes, shall have reached, the power of the state, whose functions is to keep
the great majority of producers beneath the yoke of a small minority of exploiters, will
disappear, and governmental functions will be transformed into simple administrative
functions.”
It should be made clear that the demolition of state does not conflict with the need for
centralisation in a proletarian state. Centralisation is the chief feature of the new state.
Elaborating the idea, Marx wrote: “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest,
by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the
47
MPA-102/OSOU
hands of the state….” That there is no contradiction between centralisation and state
destruction has been made clear by Marx in The Eighteenth Brumaire when he observed that
‘The demolition of the state machine will not endanger centralisation. Bureaucracy is only the
low and brutal form of a centralisation that is still afflicted with its opposite, with feudalism’.
Bureaucracy in a Transitional State

In a transitional state the character and role of the public functionaries will undergo a
radical change. They would first be brought under the control of the proletariat, and
thereafter, of the whole people. In his The Civil War in France, which Marx wrote
immediately following the bloody supersession of the rising in Paris against the provisional
Government known as the Paris Commune, he tried to paint the picture of the transitional
state. The Commune was to be the form of a local government from the great industrial
centre’s down to the smallest village hamlet. Marx says, “The few and the important
functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed…but
were to be discharged by communal and, therefore, strictly responsible agents.” The officials
in the transitional state would consist of workers and their representatives who would be
elected by universal suffrage and who could be removed at any time. Marx opined that these
measures would give a death blow to “the delusion as if administration and political
governing were mysteries, transcendent functions only to be entrusted to the hands of a
trained caste of parasites, richly paid sycophants and sinecurists…doing away with the state
hierarchy altogether, and replacing the haughteous masters of the people always removable
servants, a mock responsibility by a real responsibility as they act continuously under public
supervisions.”The administrative functionaries will survive the transition to socialism. But
“from the member of the Commune downwards the public service had to be done at
workman’s wages. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high
dignitaries of state disappeared along with high dignitaries themselves.”
Materialistic Interpretation of History

From the foregoing analysis it is clear that Marx’s analysis of bureaucracy rests on his
theory of materialist interpretation of history. In his search for finding out the content of
bureaucracy, he noticed that “in bureaucracy the identity of the interests of the state and of
the particular private purpose is to establish that the interests of state become a particular
private purpose confronting other private purposes.” Andrus Hagedus finds in Marx’s theory
an excellent demonstration of the dialectical relationship between ownership and property.
He points out:
‘Property ownership as a historically evolved, defined and substantive system of

relations of production creates automatic or personal relationship to the enforcement of the
property rights of the individuals. Institutions of state administration develop historically in a
wide variety of social and economic forms within which power relationships not directly
connected to the private property of individuals take on the appearance of real power’.
48
MPA-102/OSOU
It is of interest to note here that the misery Marx experienced during his visit to the Moselle
district as a newspaper reporter had opened young Marx’s eyes to the reality of bureaucratic
working. Marx observed:
‘Due to bureaucratic essence the administration was unable to grasp the reasons for
the misery in the spheres of administration, and could only see the reasons in the spheres of
nature and private citizens outside the sphere of administration. Even with the best of
intentions, devout humanism, and the utmost intelligence, the administrative authorities were
unable to do more than solve the instantaneous and transitory conflicts, and were incapable of
eliminating the permanent conflicts between reality and principles of administration partly
because even the best intentions were bound to fail in breaking through a substantive relation,
or in other words, destiny. The substantive relationship was, in other words, bureaucratic
relations both within the body of administration, and in respect of the body managed.’
3.4.3 WEBER’S RATIONAL AND MARX’S CLASS APPROACHES TO

BUREAUCRACY
Weber concluded that all new large-scale organisations were similar. Each was a
bureaucracy. Weber’s purpose was to define the essential features of new organisations and
to indicate why these organisations worked so much better than traditional ones. Weber
emphasised that bureaucratic organisations were an attempt to subdue human affairs to the
rule of reason to make it possible to conduct the business of the organisation “according to
calculable rules”. For people who developed modern organisations, the purpose was to find
rational solutions to the new problems of size. Weber saw bureaucracy as the rational product
of social engineering, just as the machines of the Industrial Revolution were the rational
products of mechanical engineering. He wrote:
“The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organisation has always been its
purely technical superiority over any former organisation. The fully developed bureaucratic
mechanism compares with other organisations exactly as does the machine with non-
mechanical modes of production.”
For Weber the term bureaucracy was inseparable from the term rationality and called
it the “rational bureaucracy.” The features developed to make bureaucracies rational include
functional specialisation, clear lines of hierarchical authority, expert training of managers,
and decision-making based on rules and tactics developed to guarantee consistent and
effective pursuit of organisational goals. Weber noted additional features of rational
bureaucracies are extensions of these four. To ensure expert management, appointment and
promotions are based on merit rather than favoritism, and those appointed treat their positions
as full-time, primary careers. To ensure order in decision-making, business is conducted
primarily through written rules records, and communications. Hierarchical authority is
required in bureaucracies so that highly trained experts can be properly used as managers. It
does little good to train someone to operate a stockyard, for example, and then have that
manager receive orders from someone whose training is in advertising. Rational
49
MPA-102/OSOU
bureaucracies can be operated, Weber argued, only by deploying managers at all levels that
have been selected and trained for their specific jobs. The persons selected for top positions
in bureaucracies are often rotated through many divisions of the organisation to gain firsthand
experience of the many problems that their future subordinates must face.
In contrast, Karl Marx adopted the “class” approach towards bureaucracy and found
its origins in the social divisions of the society. He said: “The bureaucracy is a circle from
which one cannot escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts the
understanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst the lower levels credit the top with
understanding of the general, and so all are mutually deceived.”
To Marx, bureaucracy is not an independent social category. It depends directly on

the separation between civil society and the state and it rests on the existence of division
within civil society, of corporations, each concerned with its particular interest. The
examination by which the bureaucrats are recruited does not represent ‘mediation’ between
civil society and state, but the separation from civil society of men and their activities for the
common good and their transfer to another sphere, that of the state. Marx says that “the
examination is nothing but the bureaucratic baptism of knowledge”. This second relationship
is a complicated one. Marx has adduced two grounds in order to explain the complicated and
intricate nature of the second relationship. In the first place, bureaucracy looks upon the other
corporations as rivals and fights against them. Secondly, it presupposes the existence of
corporations, or at least, “the spirit of corporations”, for like them it seeks simply to serve its
particular interests.
3.5 MAX WEBER
Max Weber was a versatile scholar who contributed to many fields of humanity
studies viz. Economics, History, Political Science, Sociology, Public Administration, Law,
Religion and Culture Studies. He was a key proponent of methodological anti-positivism,
arguing for the study of social action through verstehen method, i.e. interpretive means based
on understanding the purpose and meaning that individuals attach to their own actions. So far
as Public Administration is concerned, his seminal contribution is found in his studies of
bureaucracy and leadership. His analysis of formal organization and of bureaucratic model
are considered important because of his insight into the nature of bureaucracy as a rational-
legal model of organizational leadership and of his in-depth analysis of the behavioural
characteristics of the bureaucrat as the specimen of politically neutral and professionally
efficient agent of the bourgeois state machinery. Historically, he was contemporary with the
scientific management movement and was well-conversant with the economic, legal, political
and cultural tradition of European society. Weber’s bureaucratic model has been the subject
of both intense admiration as well as sharp criticism. Similarly, Weber’s theories of
legitimacy and domination have formed the basis of a number of further studies.
This module has four parts: first, a short sketch of Weber’s life and principal works in respect
of bureaucracy; second, an analysis of Weber’s theoretical ‘ideal type’ model of bureaucracy;
50
MPA-102/OSOU
third, the critique of Weberian model of bureaucracy; and fourth, a general assessment of
Weber’s contribution and position as an administrative thinker.
3.6 LIFE AND WORKS
Weber’s full name is Maximillian Karl Emil Weber. He was born on 21st April 1864
in the town of Erfurt in Thuringia in Prussia (now Germany). His father was a wealthy and
prominent civil servant and a member of the National Liberal Party. At the school level in
Berlin, he received an orthodox, mainly classical, education. At the age of eighteen, he went
to Heidelberg to study law. In the next four years he shifted to Strasbourg, to Berlin, to
Gottingen pursuing his legal studies. Such mobility of students was permissible in the
German academic system. He took his Ph.D. in 1889 on medieval trading companies and
qualified as an university teacher in 1891 with thesis on Roman agrarian and legal history. In
1892, he started teaching law in Berlin University. In 1894, he was appointed as Professor of
political economy at Freiberg University. In 1897 he became Professor of Economics at
Heidelberg University. He experienced a ‘nervous breakdown’ in 1899 and went on leave to
recover himself. He travelled in Europe and North America. In 1903 Weber, in collaboration
with Werner Sombert, started the journal, Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft and Sozial Politick.
He returned to teaching in 1918 as a Professor of Sociology at the Vienna University and
shifted next year to Munich University. He died in 1920. His magnum opus Economy and
Society was published posthumously in 1922.Weber was attached to the Evangelical
movement and made Protestant faith and charity relevant by social welfare and social
administration. Secondly, he was attached to the Bismarckian social policy movement and
concentrated on academic research and debates, and took interest in questions of society by
way of social and economic history. He got involved in problems arising from the inner
development of social sciences. Thirdly, he was connected with the National Liberal Party of
Germany, with which his father had good involvement as a parliamentarian. In 1912, Weber
tried to organize a left-wing political party to combine social democrats and liberals. This
attempt proved unsuccessful. In discussing the issues of politics and administration, he
constantly brought National Liberal attitudes. After the First World War, Max Weber was
among the founders of the liberal German Democratic Party and served as adviser to the
committee that drafted the ill-fated democratic Weimar Constitution of 1919.
3.7 METHODOLOGY
So far as his methodology is concerned, Weber held that social scientists should seek
to understand collectivities, such as nation, government, corporation etc. solely as the result
and the context of the actions of individual persons. In the first chapter of his Economy and
Society he argued that only individuals can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively
understandable action. In other words, Weber argued that social phenomenon can be
understood scientifically only to the extent that they are captured by models of the behaviour
of purposeful individuals. Weber called these models “ideal types” from which actual
historical events will necessarily deviate due to accidental and irrational factors. The
51
MPA-102/OSOU
analytical constructs of an ideal type never exist in reality, but they provide objective
benchmarks against which real life constructs can be measured.
Weber’s methodology was developed in the context of a wider debate about

methodology of social sciences. His position was close to historicism, as he understood social
actions as being heavily tied to particular historical context and its analysis required the
understanding of subjective motivations of social actors. Thus Weber’s methodology
emphasizes the use of comparative historical analysis. He was more interested in explaining
how a certain outcome was the result of various historical processes rather than predicting an
outcome of those processes in the future.
3.8 RATIONALISATION
The main theme of Weber’s work is rationalization and the issue of individual
freedom in an increasingly rational society. This theme was situated in the larger context of
the structure of the society which is usually determined by the economy. By ‘rationalisation’,
Weber understood in the more general sense the opposite of understanding the reality through
mystery and magic and through tradition. He applied rationalisation in understanding the
bureaucratic character of any organization.
Weber first gave importance to rational efforts of man in his famous treatise The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904), in which he argued that ascetic
Protestantism, particularly Calvinism, shifted human efforts towards being rational, aiming at
achieving economic gain. Weber continued his investigation into this point in his studies on
bureaucracy and on the classification of legitimate authority into three types, viz. traditional,
charismatic and rational-legal. He identified the rational-legal authority as the most dominant
one in the modern world. In his analysis of domination in the evolution of human society, he
described the movement of rationalisation. Similarly, rationalisation could be seen in the
economy, with the development of highly rational and calculating capitalism. Weber was
convinced that rationalisation was one of the main factors setting Western Europe apart from
the rest of the world. Rationalisation, to Weber, influenced the development of modern
society by helping the emergence of the organizational core of the capitalist enterprise and
the bureaucratic state apparatus.
Weber distinguished three ‘ideal types’ of political leadership or domination or authority, viz,
i) Charismatic domination in familial and religious fields,
ii) Traditional domination in feudalism and patriarchy.
iii) Rational-legal domination in modern state and bureaucracy.
He noted that the move towards a rational-legal structure of authority, utilising a

bureaucratic structure, is inevitable in the end. This point is tied to his broader concept of
rationalisation. To Weber, bureaucratic administration means fundamental domination
through knowledge. He described many ideal types of Public Administration and government
in his masterpiece Economy and Society (1922). His critical study of the bureaucratization of
society became one of the most enduring parts of his work. It was Weber who began the
52
MPA-102/OSOU
studies of bureaucracy and he popularized this term. A classic, hierarchically organized civil
service of the Prussian variety is called ‘Weberian civil service’. As the most efficient and
rational way of organizing bureaucratization, for Weber, was the key part of the rational-legal
authority. He saw bureaucracy as the key process in the ongoing rationalisation of the
Western society.
3.9 IDEAL TYPE BUREAUCRACY
Weber’s ‘ideal type’ bureaucracy is characterized by certain prominent features of its own,
viz.
i) Hierarchical structure of public offices.
ii) Recruitment to bureaucracy is on proven merit by competitive examination.
iii) Delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity.
iv) Decisions and actions are taken on the basis of written rules and precedence and
these are recorded in files.
v) Officials gain expertise and efficiency by systematic professional training.
vi) Decisions are taken and implemented impersonally and neutrally.
vii) Career advancement of officials depends on technical qualifications like seniority
and/or merit as judged by the organization, and not by individuals.
From these organizational features follow some behavioural characteristics viz,

i) Officials are paid from public funds and enjoy a fixed term of office, subject to
good behaviour.
ii) Compensation (payment) is deliberately made attractive in order to ensure
impersonality and neutrality in discharging official duties.
iii) Secrecy is maintained to the utmost degree in official functioning.
iv) Strict discipline is maintained within the hierarchy of bureaucracy, i.e. decision of
the superior officer must be accepted by the subordinate official.
v) Distinction is maintained between official and personal matters; the bureaucrats
must not appropriate the post or resources that go with the post.
vi) Administrative work is the full-time occupation of the official.
In Weberian formulation, bureaucracy is not synonymous with civil services.

Bureaucracy represents the most rationalised form of organizational activities, which assures
predictability of decision-making. Its development is the crucial phenomenon of the modern
state. Weber maintains that the bureaucratic form is the most efficient organizational form for
large-scale, complex administration that has been developed in the modern world.
Bureaucracy compares to other forms of organization as does the machine with non-
mechanical modes of production. He argues that the development of the modern form of the
organization of corporate groups in all fields is nothing less than identical with the
development and continual spread of bureaucratic administration. This is true of church and
state, of armies, political parties, economic enterprises, private associations, clubs and many
others. Its development is, other things being equal, always from a formal technical point of
view, the most rational type. For mass administration, bureaucracy seems to be indispensable.
53
MPA-102/OSOU
Weber says: “The choice is only that between bureaucracy and dilettantism in the field of
administration” (The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation).
However, it did not escape the attention of Weber that the drawing in of economic
interest groups or other non-official experts or non-experts lay representatives, or the
establishment of local, inter-local, central parliamentary or other representative bodies or of
occupational associations seems to run directly against the bureaucratic tendency.
Weber recognises that bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization and is
even indispensable for the modern state. But he also saw it as a threat to individual freedoms,
as the bureaucrats are reduced to individuals in the “iron cage” of rule-based, rational control.
Hence he concluded that, in order to counteract bureaucratic mindset, the system of
bureaucracy needs entrepreneurs and politicians.
3.10 CRITIQUE OF WEBERIAN MODEL
Weber’s formulation of the concept of bureaucracy provided an invaluable tool for the
analysis of organizational problems in a society that was making the adjustment to
industrialization. What Weber had in mind was to create a rational and efficient form of
organization. He never implied that his bureaucratic organization was the universal form. For
Weber, bureaucracy was just an ideal type of organization. It has to be admitted that today’s
majority of large organizations in both public and private sectors are predominantly
bureaucratic in structure. Bureaucratic approach to management has proved incredibly
popular, partly because of their efficiency in performance of certain qualitative tasks and
partly because of their ability to reinforce and sustain power and control, resulting in better
fixation of organizational accountability. The model was perfectly suited to the industrial age
with the predetermined goal of the state power clearly given in the nineteenth century and to
a society with a relative social homogeneity in stable world capitalism. Weber’s explanations
are highly specific to the historical periods he analysed.
The context of welfare-oriented model of bureaucracy was not known to Weber. He

visualised a stable body of experienced and competent generalist officials enjoying
permanent tenure and exercising substantial authority of decision-making and
implementation of government policies. This body of expert officials is supposed to be
conversant with what is good for the people.
In the Weberian model the rule-bound, precedence-guided bureaucrats are not
empathetic to the needs of the poor and economically vulnerable sections of the society.
Weber emphasized the efficiency factor and not the responsiveness of the bureaucracy to the
needs of the people. In the present-day context, bureaucracy must not be confined within the
rational-legal model, but it has to enter the sphere of public morality also. Today, the
bureaucrats must always keep in mind that to serve the people is the ethos of democratic
governance.
The Weberian bureaucratic model does not challenge the given political and
economic order, and it teaches that power is used in favour of the privileged and powerful. In
54
MPA-102/OSOU
the welfare-oriented context of administration the civil servant has to make a conscious moral
choice and prescribed standards to himself so that his behaviour is consistent with the
prevailing legal standards and at the same time does not blatantly violate them. In order to
ensure neutrality, Weber emphasized an impersonal approach in performing the tasks of the
bureaucratic organization. In terms of legitimacy of power, Weber extolled the virtues of
bureaucracy as its locus is in the rational-legal authority. The concept itself indicates that
what is legal is also rational. Weber was right when he stated that the other forms of authority
viz. traditional and charismatic are non-rational, if not irrational. The rational-legal authority
is definitely far superior to the other feudal forms of authority, which are both coercive and
arbitrary. However, the pertinent point is that whether the rational and legal concepts are
necessarily positive and developmental. Weber avoided this point, for capitalism can always
be justified as rational and legal, but not on moral grounds.
Weber’s bureaucratic model has been criticized by the empiricists and organization
theorists. A general criticism is that the bureaucratic model of Weber is a closed model which
takes little account of the organization’s interaction with the socio-economic, political and
cultural environment. This model is best suited in a stable environment and is not appropriate
for changing societies. Moreover, the structural features of the Weberian bureaucratic model
are best applicable for routine tasks, but they cannot cope with tasks which demand
innovation, creativity, and dynamic leadership for nation building. Bureaucratic theorists
such as Chester Barnard and Herbert Simon have underlined the point that administrative
efficiency would be reduced by following Weber’s structural approach and that efficiency in
an organization could be increased through informal organisations and better human
relations.
Robert K. Merton in his Social Theory and Social Structure (1949) points out that the
Weberian bureaucratic model lacks flexibility and has a tendency to give prominence to
means, rather than the ends, of administration. In the same vein Michel Crozier in his The
Bureaucratic Phenomenon (1964) has pointed out the deficiencies of the Weberian model in
rendering service to the people in the manner demanded by the social environmental
situation.
Peter Selznick in his TVA and the Grassroots (1949) identifies the main difficulty
with the Weberian bureaucratic model in its inability to delegate powers and responsibilities
to organizational sub-systems. The increasing complexity of big organization compels
decentralization and delegation of responsibility to the lower units and intermediary officials.
Alvin Gouldner in his Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (1954) argues that

bureaucratic techniques produce their own reactions. Organizational rules tend to define the
minimum levels of acceptable behaviour. The supervisory manager’s resort to enacting
additional rules, regulations and procedures in order to control their subordinates’
behaviour.This process creates tensions in superior-subordinate relations within the
organization, which ultimately leads to displacement of organizational goals.
Nicos Mouzelis in his Organization and Bureaucracy (1967) contends that Weber’s ideal
type bureaucracy is not necessarily rational and efficient, and consequently its posited
55
MPA-102/OSOU
combination of bureaucratic characteristics may not be ‘objectively possible’. Moreover, it is

argued that the use of ideal types alone does not accomplish Weber’s theory-building
objectives.
Joseph LaPalombara in his paper on ‘Political Development’ in Montgomery and

Siffins (ed.) Approaches to Development (1966) asserts that the Weberian bureaucracy may
be a less efficacious instrument of economic change. Citing an example of Indian experience,
he comments that “in a place like India, Public Administration steeped in the tradition of
Indian Civil Service may be less useful as development entrepreneurs than those who are not
so rigidly tied to notions of bureaucratic status, hierarchy and impartiality.”
Scholars like Robert Presthus, Ferrel Heady and Alfred Diamont have come out with
revealing conclusion that Weber’s bureaucratic model, when adopted in the non-European
cultural context, has been seen to have produced behavioural aberration among the officials
and their subordinate staff. In these situations the bureaucratic model is directed towards
activities other than achievement of goals.
Social psychologists like Warren Bennis and Peter Slater in their The Temporary
Society (1968) have predicted that the bureaucratic model is likely to be of no use in the new
social systems emerging in the 20th century. Every age develops an organizational form
appropriate to its genius. When the Weberian bureaucratic model will fail to meet the needs
of the society, new temporary work systems will be more adaptive to rapid social change.
Lloyd Rudolph and Susane Rudolph, in discussing authority and power in

bureaucratic and patrimonial administration, have commented in 1979 that formal rationality
can contribute to organizational efficiency, but can also contribute to organizational
ineffectiveness by building up the sources of alienation and resistance. In such a situation, the
power struggle against authority would be fuelled up. Patrimonial elements in bureaucratic
administration can mitigate, if not eliminate, the power struggle, just as the presence of
bureaucratic features in patrimonial administration can, and actually did, enhance its
efficiency and effectiveness.
Weber, bureaucracy’s most distinguished theoretician, recognised bureaucracy as the

characteristic form of Public Administration. He wrote so approvingly of the virtues of
bureaucracy that modern literature on Public Administration has internalised the Weberian
perspective with highest classic wisdom. Most scholarly literature presents the bureaucrat as
a benevolent social guardian maximising general welfare of the people. This view of
bureaucrat as the ‘benevolent social guardian’ has recently been successfully critiqued by
public choice theory from a perspective of individual self-interest. According to this theory,
the basic unit of social analysis is the individual. As William Niskanen points out, purposive
action by the individual is the essence of social behaviour. Niskanen, in his Bureaucracy and
the Representative Government (1971) developed a positive theory of bureaucracy. For him,
“the beginning of wisdom is the recognition that bureaucrats are people who are, at least, not
exactly motivated by the general welfare or the interests of the state.”
56
MPA-102/OSOU
Niskanen finds that a bureaucrat, like anyone else, maximises his personal utility. The
variables of his utility functions are: salary, perquisites of office, public reputation, power,
patronage and output of the bureau all of which are a positive monotonic function of the total
budget of the bureau during the tenure of the bureaucrat in office. It is only budget
maximisation which is consistent with furthering of the bureaucrat’s personal utilities.
Niskanen concludes that the bureaucrat’s optimal maximisation of the budget alone gives him
greater opportunities for promotion, job security and profits to the contract suppliers.
In recent time an incisive criticism of the Weberian bureaucratic model has been
made by Clause Offe in his Disorganised Capitalism: Contemporary Transformation of Work
and Polities (1985). He has pointed out that the rule-bound bureaucracy means that the
premises of action are not at the disposal of the actors themselves and the legal norms are
blindly and mechanically applied to specific situations. This kind of bureaucratic rationality,
for Offer, is ‘organizational rationality’. He refers to a second kind of rationality which he
calls ‘systemic rationality’. It means to the bureaucratic fulfillment of the functional
requirements of their societal environment. He observes: “Under conditions of developed,
welfare state capitalism, the rationality of bureaucratic action does not guarantee, but rather
conflicts with, the functional rationality of the political system.”
Under conditions of political instability, economic crisis and rapid societal changes,
achievement of objectives become much more important than blind adherence to rules and
work norms. That is to say, what means to assert is that the rule-bound bureaucratic system in
a developing country is incompatible with complex tasks of socio-economic development.
But there is a dilemma in that organizational rationality may conflict with ‘systemic’
rationality emerging from the societal environment. In such cases, social expectations of
programmes and results will be the main motor of government policy and action.
The Weberian bureaucratic model has also been challenged by the new sub-discipline of
Public Administration called ‘development administration’. The most eminent theorist of
development administration is Fred Riggs who introduced the ecological approach to the
study of Public Administration. Riggs used the word ‘ecology’ (science of interconnection
between nature and human habitation) to underline the influence of socio-economic and
cultural environment on Public Administration. He developed the “Fused-Prismatic
Diffracted” model to explain the differences between underdeveloped-developing-developed
societies and their corresponding stage of development vis-a-vis their administrative structure
and ethos. His ecological approach emphasizes the interaction between institutions and their
contextual factors such as social structure, tradition and culture. Riggs introduced a new
model for studying the bureaucracy in the Third World transitional, developing countries and
argued that the Weberian model is not suitable for studying the administration in such
countries. The Riggsian model called the “sala-prismatic” model of bureaucracy recognizes
both administrative rationality and non-administrative considerations. This model is typical
for developing countries having factors such family, kinship and caste considerations,
community feeling, nepotism, corruption, which play important role in administrative
recruitment, administrative functions and decision-making. This model is, however,
considered too broad, too over-generalized and abstract. As Robert Presthus points out, the
Riggsian model has a Western bias and the terminology used is value- loaded as it
57
MPA-102/OSOU
emphasizes the negative characteristics of ‘prismatic’ societies. Moreover, there is not much
empirical evidence to support it.
What is most important, Public Administration today in most of the developing countries is
going through major reforms based on the market-driven principles and governance models
such as New Public Management, Best Practices, and the World Bank’s Good Governance
ideology. These are non-ecological models.
In recent time, the Weberian bureaucratic model has been attacked from a new angle. The
Weberian model portrays the bureaucracy as meritocracy and rules out any other form of
non-rational evaluation like gender and ethnic discrimination. There is no way of judging the
performance of employees in terms of their gender or ethnicity. Weber himself said: “The
development of bureaucracy greatly favors’ the leveling of the social classes”. It is obvious
that Weber has not gone deeper into the analysis of the origins and nature of social classes.
Marx has convincingly shown that the discrimination between social classes cannot be ended
without a real change in the mode of production.
A new generation of organization theorists has focused on the issue of inequalities of power
and status existing within bureaucracies. Far from being a “rational” organization, Weber’s
bureaucratic model, as adopted in many democracies, has been found in real life mirroring
the prejudices of the larger society. Kathy Ferguson has pointed out that the so called
bureaucratic rationality has in reality worked in such a way that women have been judged
unfavorably as potential members of bureaucracy. The pertinent point is that a “discourse of
bureaucracy” with its focus on rationality, objectivity and impersonality has been seen to
have run alongside a “discourse of domesticity” that stressed emotional and familial values.
Recent research on bureaucratic model in the United States has successfully discovered the
unequal distribution of power in the organizational set-up and the general trend towards
restricting women to the unimportant levels of bureaucratic decision-making.
3.11 CONCLUSION
Marx’s theory of bureaucracy has tremendous sociological, political and economic

significance. Avineri points out that “the bureaucratic structures do not automatically reflect
prevailing social power but pervert and disfigure them. Bureaucracy is the image of the
prevailing social power distorted by its claim to universality.” Marx does not look upon
bureaucracy as an apparatus of the modern state detached from, and independent of, the state.
For Marx, as Hal Draper explains, bureaucracy “is not a mere accretion…not simply an
unfortunate tumor on the otherwise sound body of the state, but rather inherent in and
inseparable from the very existence of the state.”The political significance of Marx’s concept
of bureaucracy lies in its message for the proletariat. Marx was not interested in interpreting
the world but in changing it. And, he believes in violent overthrow of the state machinery.
The amount of violence required to bring about a revolution should be determined by the
strength of the military and bureaucratic apparatus of the state. Thus it is a prime task on the
part of the proletariat to undertake a serious appraisal of the nature and strength of
bureaucracy in an oppressive state.
58
MPA-102/OSOU
Weber was, no doubt, a champion of bureaucracy and spoke eloquently about the
rational character of his model of administration. In his book Economy and Society, Weber
has underlined the technical superiority of bureaucracy. David Betham, however, has pointed
out that Weber’s political writings focus on the negative aspects of bureaucracy and the
essential limitations of his bureaucratic model. In his political writings, Weber appears as a
critic of bureaucracy in real life politics and considers the political supervision of
bureaucracy by the popularly elected leadership essential for the healthy functioning of the
democratic system.
Throughout the history of management studies, the term “bureaucracy” has been used by
academic scholars, business executives and public practitioners from diverse disciplines. The
usefulness of the term depends largely upon how the concept is interpreted and understood.
Generally speaking, ‘bureaucracy’ is perceived as a form of organization that emphasizes
precision, speed, clarity, regularity, reliability, and efficiency achieved through fixed division
of tasks, hierarchical supervision, and detailed rules and regulations.
Weber basically means that there is a need to establish a rational basis for the
organization and management of large-scale undertakings, whether public or private. The
most critical problem would be to devise a system and structure whereby any large-scale
organization might function systematically and efficiently. For Weber, bureaucracy was
management by the office or position rather than by a person or patrimonial. He conceived
bureaucracy as an ideal, not the most desirable, organization which would be perfectly
rational and provide maximum efficiency in operation. His model was rather a hypothetical
rather than factual description of how most organizations were structured. He perceived
bureaucracy as a rational-legal authority which is far superior to the traditional and
charismatic authority.
E. Jaques, a modern management expert, has praised hierarchy from his long personal
experience by noting that management hierarchy, when properly structured, can release
energy and creativity, rationalize productivity, and actually improve morale (See J. J.
Gabarro, ed. Managing People and Organizations, Harvard Business School, 1992).
One of the most outstanding advantages of Weberian bureaucracy is that it brings

objectivity in recruitment process by reducing nepotism and other forms of favoritism by
decision-makers. In fact, Weber never claimed that his bureaucratic organization was the
universally acceptable model. It was just an ‘ideal type’. The hard fact is that bureaucracy
continues to be a dominant structural form throughout the world in manufacturing, service
firms, hospitals, educational institutions, the church, and the military and even voluntary
associations. The reason is it is still the most efficient method to organize large-scale
activities of course, it would be necessary to carefully look at systems, traditions, practices
and culture of the organization in order to make it the winning enterprise of the 21st century.
There must be teamwork at the top, a vision and a strategy, necessary delegation of power to
appropriate levels, and an adaptive corporate culture. Leadership is really a critical factor for
achieving success of any organization. The old mentality of command and control is no
longer relevant and it needs to be replaced by peer relationships based on a network of
59
MPA-102/OSOU
voluntary cooperation and market-based exchanges. The point is to motivate the entire
organization for responding to a complicated and dynamic environment. No doubt, flexibility
and capacity for creative action become more critical than narrow efficiency. In the modern
context of exploding complexities in socio-economic and political processes, Weber’s
bureaucratic model appears cumbersome and incompatible with high performance in
intelligence-intensive world economy. What is needed in the changed context of the 21st
century is to assemble a collective intelligence to think globally and act locally both in the
short and the long run. Despite the criticisms leveled against Weberian bureaucratic model, it
has to be accepted that Weber’s work provided virtually the foundation of the discourse on
organizational structure and system. Weber’s theoretical framework has been extremely
influential and has stimulated wide-scale research and thinking on an urgent issue of business
management and Public Administration. He has intelligibly shown how organization theory
can be applied to provide solution to management problems.
3.12ACTIVITIES
1. Discuss Marx’s Theory of Alienation.

2. Critically examine Weber’s bureaucratic model.
60
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-4: LYNDALL FOWNES URWICK AND LUTHER

HALSEY GULICK
Structure:
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Life and Works
4.3 Structure of Administration
4.4 Principles of Organisation
4.5 Executive Functions
4.6 Theory of Departmentalisation
4.7 Single executive
4.8 Staff Principle
4.9 Delegation
4.10 Span of Control
4.11 Human Factor and Time in Public Administration
4.12 A Critical Estimate
4.13 Conclusion
4.14 Activities
After reading this Unit, You should be able to:

 Understanding the Concept of Departmentalisation Theory.
 Understand the Executive Functions?
 Know what are the Principles of Organisations
4.1 INTRODUCTION
With the coming of the industrial revolution in the 19th century many attempts were
made to develop the principles of organisation to meet the requirements of the emerging
industry. Among such attempts mention should be made of the works of F. W. Taylor, an
American engineer and Henry Fayol, a French manager, who developed what today is known
as the classical organisation or management theory. There are also many others who
contributed to the conceptualisation of the theory. They developed theories of keeping
organisational efficiency and increased productivity as their goal. Subsequently, American
and British theorists synthesised the organisational or management theories as applicable to
public organisations. Among such writers Gulick and Urwick merit prominently. Their edited
volume The Papers on the Science of Administration (1937) is considered to be an important
landmark in the development of the science of administration. They synthesised and
integrated the ideas, writings and researches of earlier theorists on organisations, structures
and executive functions.
61
MPA-102/OSOU
4.2 LIFE AND WORKS
Luther Halsey Gulick III (1892-1993), an acknowledged founder of administrative

thought, a pioneer and a legend, was born in Yumamoto, Japan where he spent his initial
twelve years before returning to the USA. He graduated from Oberlin in 1914 majoring in
political science with high honours and obtained Ph.D in 1920 from the Columbia University.
He secured Litt.D in 1939 and was conferred LL.D. in 1954. He was Director, Institute of
Public Administration from 1921 to 1961 and later chairman of the Board of Trustees of the
Institute for another 21 years. Gulick served on the National Defence Council during the First
World War, Administrator of New York City (1954-56) and was Eaton Professor of
Municipal Science and Administration at Columbia University (1931-1942). He undertook
several consultancy assignments on administration in US Administration and in several other
countries including one at Calcutta, India concerning water supply under the aegis of World
Bank. He was a member of the President’s Committee on Administrative Management in
1936. He authored more than 20 books and research studies, over 160 articles and over 250
unpublished papers, studies, reports, etc. Notable among his publications include
Administrative Reflections from World War II, Metropolitan Problems and American Ideas,
Modern Management for the City of New York and The Papers on the Science of
Administration. He promoted the establishment of notable institutions like Brookings
Institution, International City Managers Association, American Society for Public
Administration, etc. He was president of both American Political Science Association and
American Society of Public Administration; a distinction he shared with LD White.
Lyndall Fownes Urwick (1891-1983), an avid advocate of scientific management, an

outstanding management consultant, thinker and prolific writer, was born at Malvern,
Worcestershire, UK. After graduation from New College, Oxford in 1913, he joined the
family business and during the First World War he joined the army rising to the rank of
Major. In 1922, he joined Rountree at York and later worked as Director of International
Institute of Management (1928-33). During 1934-61 he was associated with Urwick, Orr and
Partners Limited in the capacities of president, managing director, and chairman. During the
Second World War (1940-42),he worked as advisor to the Treasury. He chaired the Urwick
Committee appointed by the Ministry of Education to investigate what educational facilities
are required to ensure adequate training facilities for its managers. He was actively involved
in spreading management education, he undertook several consultancies across the globe
including the USA and India. He was a key figure in the establishment of Administrative
Staff College at Henley-on-Thames (now called Henley Management College). He was
recipient of several international awards and gold medals including Taylor Key, Gantt
Memorial Medal (1959) and in 1958 was elected as a Fellow of International Academy of
Management. He published several books including Management of Tomorrow; The Making
of Scientific Management (3 Vols.); The Elements of Administration; The Patterns of
Management and Leadership in the XXth Century Organisations, Dynamic Administration,
Freedom and Coordination. He, along with Gulick, edited The Papers on the Science of
Administration, and founded the Administrative Science Quarterly.
62
MPA-102/OSOU
Gulick and Urwick had rich experience in the working of the civil service, military
and industrial organisations. It is because of this, that one finds continued references to
discipline and efficiency in their writings. They even borrowed concepts like line and staff
from the military organisation. They were influenced by the machine model of man
developed by Taylor. The studies in industrial management conducted by Henry Fayol also
influenced their thinking.4 Deriving inspiration mainly from their works, the two thinkers
synthesised the classical theory of organisation, which is also known as the Administrative
Management theory. They believed that it is possible to develop a science of administration
based on principles. They pointed out to the fact that even an engineer at one time, was
considered to be a craftsman who developed his skills at the bench only. It was only, through
empirical observations, analyses and systematised findings committed to recording and
documentation over a considerable period, a science of engineering became possible. In the
same way if the experiences of administrators are processed it could be possible to develop a
science of administration. Administration hitherto remained an art and there is no reason why
it cannot be developed into a science; they believed.
4.3 STRUCTURE OF ADMINISTRATION
One notable feature in the writings of these thinkers is the importance they attached to
the structure of administration while almost neglecting the role of men in the organisation.
Urwick remarks that ‘it is impossible for humanity to advance its knowledge of organisation
unless the factor on structure is isolated from other considerations, however artificial such
isolation may appear”.He traces a large proportion of friction andconfusion in society, with
its major consequences, to the faulty structural arrangements in organisations. He defined
organisation asdetermining activities that are necessary for a purpose (or plan) and arranging
them in groups, which may be assigned to individuals.Thus while the identification of the
tasks and their grouping is given top priority, the individuals to whom thefunctions are
entrusted come later. Urwick is aware of the fact that to begin with one may not have a clean
slate but he suggests that one may assume to have a clean slate and design an ideal structure
of organisation. Any alterations, if required, may be made later.
While conceiving an organisation chiefly as a designing process, Urwick felt that lack
of design is illogical, cruel, wasteful and inefficient. Illogical because it is inconceivable to
appoint a person and pay him wages without an idea of the position he is likely to occupy.
Cruel when an organisational member does not know the qualifications required for the job
and the duties assigned to him in the job situation. Wasteful because if jobs are not arranged
properly, functional specialisation is not possible and training people to occupy jobs falling
vacant due to death or retirement becomes difficult. Inefficient because the supervisors have
nothing to fall back except on personalities in the event of conflict and confusion.
4.4 PRINCIPLES OF ORGANISATION
Having stressed the importance of the structure as a designing process Gulick and Urwick
devoted their attention to the discovery of principles based on which the structure may be
63
MPA-102/OSOU
designed. Gulick enumerates ten principles of organisation.8 In working out these principles,
Gulick was influenced by Henry Fayol’s fourteen basic elements of administration. The
principles are:
• Division of work or specialisation
• Bases of departmental organisation
• Coordination through hierarchy
• Deliberate coordination
• Coordination through committees
• Decentralisation
• Unity of command
• Staff and line
• Delegation and
• Span of control
Among the ten principles of administration, Gulick lays special emphasis on division of
work. He feels that the division of work is the basis for organisation; indeed the reason for
organisation. The other classical administrative theorists also made the division of labour as
the central tenet. Work division implies that the job to be performed is broken into its
component functions and again each of the component functions be broken down into simple
repetitive activities. At each stage the sub-division of work is followed by the interrelating of
the divided parts. The focus of attention shifts from grouping the various activities into sub-
units, collecting the sub-units together to form units and inter-relating the units to create the
overhead organisation. Thus, Gulick says that division of work and integration are the
bootstraps by which mankind lifts itself in the process of civilisation.
However, Gulick was conscious of the limitations beyond which the division of work
cannot go. He cites volume of work, technology, custom and physical and organic
limitations.Urwick identified eight principles of organisation, viz., (1) the ‘principle of
objectives’, organisation should be an expression of a purpose; (2) the ‘principle of
correspondence’ - authority and responsibility must be co-equal; (3) the ‘principle of
responsibility,’ - responsibility of superiors for the work of subordinates is absolute; (4) the
‘scalar principle’; (5) the ‘principle of the span of control’ - a superior cannot supervise
directly the work of more than five or six subordinates whose works interlock; (6) the
‘principle of specialisation’ - limiting one’s work to a single function; (7) ‘principle of
coordination’ and (8) the ‘principle of definition’- a clear prescription of every duty. Later by
integrating Fayol’s fourteen principles, Mooney and Reiley’s principles of process and effect,
Taylor’s principles of management and the ideas of Follett and Graicunas, Urwick derived
twenty-nine principles and a host of sub-principles. They are: (1) investigation, (2)
forecasting, (3) planning, (4)appropriateness, (5) organisation, (6) coordination, (7) order, (8)
command, (9) control, (10) the coordinative principle, (11) authority, (12) scalar process, (13)
assignment of functions, (14) leadership, (15) delegation, (16) functional definition, (17)
determinative, (18) applicative, (19) interpretative, (20) the general interest, (21)
centralisation, (22) staffing, (23) spirit, (24) selection and placement, (25) rewards and
sanctions, (26) initiative, (27) equity, (28) discipline and (29) stability. Urwick felt that the
administrative organisation is still an unexplored field and there are many unknown factors
64
MPA-102/OSOU
for a fuller understanding. He, therefore, suggests that his principles are a framework of
thought and an arrangement of ideas which would help others to synthesise out of their own
experience.
4.5 EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
Gulick identified the executive functions and coined the acronym POSDCORB
incorporating the first letters of all the functions detailed earlier. Each letter in the acronym
represents one important function of the managers. The first letter ‘P’ stands for planning.
Planning is concerned with the identification of the various activities required to reach the
goal and arranging them in terms of priorities and sequence so that the objectives of the
organisation may be reached in a systematic and efficient manner. In other words, it is the
function of planning to estimate the human and material resources available to the
organisation and discover ways and means of reaching the goals of organisation through
appropriate means while aiming at economy and efficiency.
‘O’ stands for organisation. After planning the activities of administration one should
think of the structure of administration, viz., organisation through which the activities are
operationalised and objectives achieved.
‘S’ stands for staffing and it is concerned with all aspects of personnel administration.
Recruitment, appointment, promotion, discipline, retirement, etc., are functions which must
receive due attention of the executive. As the efficiency of the organisation largely depends
upon its personnel, most of the time of the executive usually is devoted to this function.
‘D’ stands for directing and relates to the orders issued by the managers to the subordinates
directing the activities of the administration.
‘Co’ stands for coordination and relates not only to the evidence of conflicts and duplication
in organisations but to secure cooperation and teamwork between the various units and
employees.
‘R’ stands for reporting and it symbolises upward flow of information to the
executive. It is the responsibility of the executive to keep himself posted with the progress of
activities in the organisation. A good communication system is imperative through which
such progress is reported to the executive. It is through reporting that the executive becomes
aware of the problems in the organisation for which he may initiate corrective measures by
issuing necessary directions.
Finally, the word ‘B’ stands for budgeting covering the entire field of financial
administration. As finance is indispensable for any administration, the executive has to pay
adequate attention to budgeting, financial procedures, accounting, etc.
65
MPA-102/OSOU
4.6 THEORY OF DEPARTMENTALISATION
The theory of departmentalisation addresses the problem of bases on which work may
be divided and departments created. Luther Gulick identifies four bases viz., purpose
(function), process, persons (clientele), and place, which are popularly known as the ‘4Ps’ of
Gulick. He discussed at length the merits and demerits of each one of these bases of
departmentalisation. The main proposition of the discussion is that the advantages of each of
the bases prove to be less costly in terms of the others.
In the first place, the work may be divided on the basis of major purpose or function.
One has to identify the major functions and goals of organisation and create departments for
each one of such functions. Gulick emphasises on the self-containment of the organisation
and low coordination costs involved as advantages of this base. Secondly, process or skill
specialisation is suggested as an alternative to purpose. If this basis is accepted then all work
based on similar process or skill should be grouped together since it involves use of the same
knowledge, skills and processes.
Gulick discusses at length the merits and demerits of the two bases. For instance, he
lists out advantages of the purpose as bases. He says it makes more certain, the
accomplishment of a given purpose or project by bringing the whole job under a single
director with immediate control of all the experts, agencies and services which are required in
the performance of the work with minimum outside interference. He can devote all his
energies to get on with the job. After listing out the other advantages of the base, he also
comments on its demerits. For instance, he says that there is a danger that an organisation
created on the basis of purpose will fail to make use of the most up-to-date technical devices
and specialists because there may not be enough work of a given technical nature to permit
efficient sub-division and utility. Likewise the virtues of the process basis are mentioned by
Gulick thus: “…bringing together in a single office a large amount of each kind of work
(technically measured) makes it possible in each case to make use of the most effective
division of work and specialisation. Second, it makes possible also the economies of the
maximum use of labour saving machinery and mass production. These economies arise not
from the total mass of the work to be performed, but from the fact that the work is performed
with the same machine, with the same technique, with the same motions.”
Specialisation of work according to the clientele served is the third bases. Gulick
observes that the members of the department develop specialised skills in serving a particular
group. But this principle is not only inadequate for universal application but coordination
between such organisations becomes difficult on account of overlapping and duplication.
Territory or place is another base. In this all functions performed in a given area are clubbed
together and departments created. This base may be fruitfully used for the intensive
development of any area. The members of such departments also become area specialists.
The theories of departmentalisation are based on such common sense terms that the basic
truths underlying division of work cannot be denied. Even today, whenever work is to be
66
MPA-102/OSOU
divided and sub-units are to be created, the merits and demerits of the bases have to be
weighed before taking a decision. But Gulick did not consider other important factors, which
influence work division. For instance, of the four bases the type of specialisation may be
determined by the culture in which the organisation is situated, by the environment and by the
availability of personnel and political factors.
4.7 SINGLE EXECUTIVE
Gulick and Urwick did not favour organisations headed by plural bodies like
committees but insisted on single top executive. Urwick, for instance, felt that the committees
encourage irresponsibility. They are used to shield mistakes and to avoid responsibility. To
him committee is like a corporation without ‘a soul to be damned or a body to be kicked’. To
substantiate his point he quotes from the Report of the US President’s Committee on
Administrative Management, of which Gulick was a member. The Committee says, ‘for
purposes of management, boards and commissions have turned out to be failures. Their
mechanism is inevitably slow, cumbersome, wasteful and ineffective and does not lend itself
readily to cooperation with other agencies…. The conspicuously well-managed
administrative units in the government are almost without exceptions headed by single
administrators’. They also felt that a subordinate should receive orders only from one
superior. At the same time they were aware of the fact that this principle of unity of command
is not capable of universal application. It is a known fact that Taylor proved that the
functional supervision would help increase efficiency. But Gulick argues that we may
prefer the advantages that are likely to accrue when we follow the principle rather than the
confusion, inefficiency and irresponsibility that may follow its violation.
4.8 STAFF PRINCIPLE
The principle of staff is born out of the principle of unity of leadership. When all
authority rests with the leader, he requires assistance in running the organisation. The staff
renders such assistance - both special and general. Gulick and Urwick feel that the special
staff units do not exercise any direct authority and that their job is to render technical advice
and provide timely and adequate information. The objective of these staff agencies is to
discharge knowing, thinking and planning functions and they must get the things done by
‘authority of ideas’. The general staff is also necessary to assist the executive in the tasks of
command; control and coordination. They must draw up and transmit orders, follow up
operations and help coordinate the work of staff specialists without themselves taking on any
specialised functions. As a member of the President’s Committee on Administrative
Management Gulick applied his idea to the civil organisation and paved the way for the
creation of present staff agencies under the American President.
67
MPA-102/OSOU
4.9 DELEGATION
The delegation of authority is another important principle mentioned by these

classicists. They stressed the need for the administrators to keep the requisite authority with
them and delegate the rest to their subordinates. In the absence of delegation, the subordinates
cannot discharge their responsibilities and administer the functions entrusted to them. They
also discussed as to how and when to delegate authority. Urwick says that organisations do
not function efficiently, if executives do not have the enterprise to delegate and also do not
know how to delegate. They also emphasised the need to delegate responsibility of executives
in whom authority is vested that they should be ‘absolute’ and that they should be personally
accountable for the actions of their subordinates. He also maintains that authority and
responsibility must be coterminous, co-equal and defined. Thus these authors emphasised the
principle of ‘correspondence of responsibility and authority’.
4.10 SPAN OF CONTROL
The principle of span of control postulates that an official cannot effectively control
simultaneously more than a certain number of subordinates, at a time. Urwick says that ‘no
superior can effectively supervise directly the work of more than five or, at the most, six
subordinates whose work interlocks’. He observes that if the number of subordinates
increases in arithmetic progression, there is a simultaneous geometrical growth in the
permutations and combinations of the relationships requiring the superior’s attention. Urwick,
however, was not dogmatic about the number and says that the span of control is not a rigid
rule to be applied woodenly in all situations. But it is a very useful general principle and a
diagnostic instrument in cases where organisational weakness exists. However, Gulick unlike
Urwick was less categorical in fixing the maximum number of subordinates an executive can
effectively manage. Instead, he discussed some of the factors that determine the span of
control. Three factors that would determine the span were identified by him. In the first place,
the span depends on each individual supervisor. A person with superior knowledge - intellect
and personality - may effectively be able to control more number of subordinates. It is also a
matter of time and energy of the executive. Secondly, the span depends upon the kind of
work - work transacted by the subordinates.
Where the work is routine, repetitive, measurable and homogenous it will be possible to
effectively supervise many of them. On the other hand, where work is diversified, qualitative
and workers are scattered executive can supervise only a few. Thirdly, element of time span
will be more in stable organisations, which are in existence for a long time. The procedures,
methods and techniques of administration in such organisations could have been consolidated
and consequently there could be less necessity for the intervention by the superiors. On the
other hand, in new and changing organisations the superiors have to keep a constant watch
for good precedents to be established and proper procedures adopted for the administration.
Gulick wanted further research on the subject.
68
MPA-102/OSOU
4.11 HUMAN FACTOR AND TIME IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Gulick in his later writings noted that much has happened to affect the field of Public
Administration and his analysis of its nature since he edited The Papers on the Science of
Administration seventy years ago. Based on fifty years of analysis, he notes that ‘after all,
governments are constituted of human beings, are run by human beings and have as their
main job helping, controlling and serving human beings’. He considers human beings as the
major and essential variables for understanding the nature of Public Administration today and
guiding the field into the future. On this foundation, he identifies as to how human beings
constitute the dynamic factors that are intrinsic in the study of administration. Gulick
emphasises that the main functions of the state should be human welfare, survival and
improvement to meet the challenges of the ever changing environment and not war. But
unfortunately, the structure of the modern state is specifically designed for war and is
distinctly military. It is authoritative, with all authority concentrated at the top and all the
work, but not the authority, assigned to subordinate echelons and field commanders. In Public
Administration our very vocabulary is military in origin. We talk about “line and staff”, “field
commanders”, and “material and manpower”, and when we make cost-benefit analyses we
manipulate hard statistics, not human values and human welfare.
Gulick emphasises in the field of Public Administration, that there is need for a new
approach to the fundamental organisation of the state introducing greater decentralisation in
place of the present centralised, hierarchical, military structure. He also suggests that Public
Administration should forget the non-existent economic man, deal realistically with the
nonexistent free market and include human welfare and compassion in its embrace. Gulick
also emphasises that time is the crucial factor in every event. Without it there is no change,
no growth, no cause and effect and no responsibility for management. He notes that all public
policy innovations are rooted in timing and in democracy timing is the hallmark of the
statecraft.
Gulick identifies five different aspects of time, namely, time as an input, time as an
output, time as the flow of events, time as a gap between two or more significant events or
processes and finally, timing as a management policy. He emphasises that time has practical
and significant implications for Public Administration. It means that the principles of
management and administration should be eternally tied to the culture in which they work,
and that the culture must evolve appropriately well before major changes in human
organisation can be successfully undertaken. Timing is essential for any organisation as it is
not a machine but an organism. He emphasises that time must become a central strategic and
moral concern in public management. Therefore, government must plan and work with this
flow in time and for time. But he laments that time has been a neglected factor.
69
MPA-102/OSOU
4.12 A CRITICAL ESTIMATE
The principles of organisation of Gulick and Urwick were subjected to severe

criticism. While writing so much about principles they have not made it clear as to what they
meant by them.
Normally principles are said to be universal truths subject to verification. However, such
universal validity appears to be absent as far as principles of administration are concerned.
They appear more in the nature of the postulates of experienced men who have closely
observed organisations at work. At best they may be action recommendations but not
scientific principles. L. D. White says that the terms line, staff and auxiliary agencies,
hierarchy, authority, centralisation, were useful terms for describing or classifying
administrative situations; they are no more. They are not rules. They suggest only working
rules of conduct which wide experience validated.
Herbert Simon stands high among those who attacked the ‘principles’. Bertram Gross
has noted that ‘Simon will long be reread with pleasure for his free-swinging attacks on
Gulick and Urwick principles as homely proverbs, myths, slogans, inanites’. Simon says that
“it is a fatal defect of the current principles of administration that, like proverbs, they occur in
pairs. For almost every principle one can find an equally plausible and acceptable
contradictory principle. Although the two principles of the pair will lead to exactly opposite
organisational recommendations, there is nothing in the theory to indicate which the proper
one to apply”. For instance one of the ‘proverbs’ says that administrative efficiency increases
by specialisation. But it is not made clear whether area specialisation is good or functional
specialisation. The principle of specialisation does not help in choosing between the two
alternatives. It appears to be simple; a simplicity that conceals fundamental ambiguities.
Likewise, there is contradiction between the principle ofspecialisation and the principle of
unity of command. The unity of command of Gulick’s specification never existed in any
administrative organisation. The specialists working in organisations are always subject to the
duel control of the superiors in administration and in technical matters. The evidence of
‘actual administration practices would seem to indicate that the need for specialisation is to a
very large degree given priority over the need for unity of command”.
Another contradictory situation relates to the principle of span of control. One

principle asserts that administrative efficiency increases by keeping the levels of organisation
to the minimum. This is supposed to help the simplification of the procedures. But when
levels are thus reduced, the span of control increases resulting in the violation of another
important principle. Moreover, the specification of the ideal number of subordinates as
between 5 and 11 has no scientific validity at all.40 Simon also pointed out to the
contradictions involved in choosing between the principles of departmentalisation. Simon felt
that “the principles of administration are at best criteria for describing and diagnosing
administrative situations.”
All the stated principles are to be considered in the design of an efficient

administrative organisation. None of them should be considered superior or inferior inter se.
70
MPA-102/OSOU
Keeping the overall efficiency in view, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
various principles have to be comparatively weighed and the relevant one should be selected
for the occasion. Perhaps the most critical failure of the classical administrative science is its
incapacity to “confront theory with evidence”. The principles tend to dissolve when put to
test; partly this is because of the consequence of difficulties in operation. It is not possible to
conduct
controlled experiments to test the theories time and again.
The bases of departmental organisation are criticised on the basis that they are
incompatible with each other. There is an overlap between them and they are said to be
vague. Further, it is pointed out that the principles are prescriptive rather than descriptive and
they state how work should be divided rather than how work is actually divided.
Organisations grow according to the dictates of the situation and in consonance with the
requirements of efficiency and goal achievement. Thus, one may see that all the four bases of
departmental organisation are being adopted though not deliberately, in a single organisation.
For instance, the Defense Department based on purpose may have geographical subdivisions
as the basis of its working. They may have clientele sub-unit which looks after the welfare of
the war-widows. Again, there may be an accounts division in the department based on skill
specialisation.
The classical administrative theory is criticised for its neglect of the human element in
anorganisation. In the writings of classical thinkers, there are certain trends, which are
considered by humans as insignificant in administrative processes. In the first place, there is a
tendency to treat the human being as an instrument incapable of individual contribution based
on personal qualification. It is this critical failure that gave rise to the human relations
movement and behavioural studies. The new developments compensated the failure of the
classical theorists by viewing organisations essentially as human associations. Being living
entities, the humans have both psychological and physiological processes involved in their
behaviour. Hence, human element cannot be taken for granted. Mere assignment of duties
and functions does not ensure the optimum contributions of effort by the employees.
Moreover, personnel are not static factor but a variable in the system. We may not get
persons to suit organisational requirements. At best there could be only an adjustment of
personnel who approximately suit the requirements of the jobs. Hence, the vagary of human
resources is an important limitation to the mechanistic approach to organisations. It is a fact
that humans have to be constantly motivated to contribute their efforts towards the attainment
of their goals. These motivational assumptions in classical theories are incomplete and hence,
inaccurate. Several writers have subsequently devoted considerable attention on aspects of
motivation and morale, etc.
There is no doubt, that some evidence has been found in the writings of the classical
theorists that they were aware of the human element in organisations. For instance, Gulick
says social experiments must be made by men on men. This greatly restrict the process of
verification of hypothesis not only because of the value and dignity of human life but also
because, human beings continually interfere with experiments involving themselves. He also
71
MPA-102/OSOU
pointed out that in dealing with human beings we encounter a rare dynamic element which is
compounded in proportions of predictable and unpredictable or rational or emotional conduct.
Secondly, we are not able, except in the rarest circumstances, to set up controlled
experiments and test the theories over and over at will. From these observations, it is evident
that the classical theorists were aware of the human element in an organisation. However,
they took into consideration, only the rational behaviour of the humans. It was left to thinkers
like Simon, to point out to the several limitations to rationality in human behaviour. It is a
matter of common knowledge today, that rationality in decision-making as well as behaviour
is subject to a particular frame of reference compounded by the knowledge of employee, his
perception of goals of organisation as well as the consequences of his decisions and actions.
But the subjective character of rationality did not receive the due attention of the classical
theorists.
There are arguments that Gulick and Urwick have shown concern only for the formal
organisation to the total neglect of the informal organisational process. It is a matter of
common knowledge that organisations do not conform to the formal model all the time. The
humans behave in a way that suits their instincts and wants. Hence, the actual behaviour
always differs from the intended behaviour. Neglect of this vital truth is very unrealistic as far
as the administrative processes are concerned.
The dynamic nature of administration and the ever changing setting in which it
functions is not given adequate attention by the classical theorists. As Alfred Diamant45 says,
most of the conceptual constraints in organisations have a ‘steady’ bias. The organisations
and organisational goals undergo a constant change as a result of the economic, social or
political stimuli and hence, any study of administration must take into consideration this
element of change. No doubt, Gulick to some extent was aware of the role of change when he
observed that the principles “appropriate at one stage may not be appropriate at all during
succeeding stages’. But the fact is that the change as such has not received adequate attention
of the classical theorists.
Simon and March point out important limitations to the classical administrative
science. The first relates to the improper motivational assumptions. Secondly, there is little
appreciation of the role of intra-organisational conflict of interests in defining limits or
organisational behaviour. Thirdly, the constraints placed on the human being by his
limitations as a complex information processing system. Fourthly, little attention was given to
the role of cognition in task identification and classification. Lastly, the phenomenon of
programme evaluation receives little attention.46 The last of these limitations is in fact very
significant. It is wrong to assume that the administration is not concerned with the
specification, elaboration and redefinition of goals of the organisation. Failure to identify the
administrative functions may be said to be a vital lapse on the part of the classical theorists.
V. Subramaniam points out two important limitations of the classical theories. In the
first place, there is lack of sophistication in the theories. They appear to be commonplace
general knowledge propositions, which do not appeal to the intellectual curiosity of the
academicians and practitioners of administration. Secondly, all the classical theorists
72
MPA-102/OSOU
exhibited a pro-management bias in their theories. The theorists only dealt with the problems
of management in the organisation and not the other operational problems that involve the
other levels of management.
In spite of the varied criticisms, Gulick and Urwick’s ideas and conceptualisations,
also called classical administrative theory, stands out prominently in the literature of Public
Administration. No textbook on Public Administration is complete without a discussion of
the principles. The simple truths underlying the propositions stated as principles by the
classical thinkers cannot be denied. But these propositions are misleading as they, at best,
represent only half-truths. While calling them proverbs, Simon devoted considerable space to
these principles in his writings. Even he could not discard them. The inescapable conclusion
is that they do not represent all aspects of administration. However, there is a common
element between the classical theorists and the works of several contemporary writers on
administration. The commonness of approach relates to an interest in the structure, economy
and efficiency, settlement of conflict, delegation of authority, decentralisation, etc.
Gulick captured the development of the field of Public Administration and pointed to
the importance of Public Administration as a managerial, political, moral and ethical concern.
As Denhardt has noted that we now recognise that administrative action is permeated by
moral choices and whether we like it or not administrators are model of not only technical
and professional but also moral behaviour.
4.13 CONCLUSION
The contribution of Gulick and Urwick to the administrative theory is:

• Luther Gulick, an acknowledged founder of administrative thought, and Lyndall Urwick, an
outstanding management consultant with their rich experiences in civil and military
administration made significant contribution to the synthesis of classical administration. As
finance is indispensable for any administration, the executive has to pay adequate attention to
budgeting, financial procedures, accounting, etc.
• The Papers on the Science of Administration, edited by them, is considered a landmark in
the development of the science of administration. In their view the process of development of
engineering science, which is based on empirical observations and analysis, is equally
applicable to the development of science of administration;
• Gulick and Urwick emphasised the importance of structure in the administration. They
considered structure as a designing process and devoted their attention to the discovery of
principles based on which the structure may be designed. They considered principles as a
framework of thought and arrangement of ideas to help in the development of science of
administration;
• Gulick discussed in detail the executive functions and coined POSDCORB by incorporating
the first letters of all the functions of the executive. The acronym, though not comprehensive,
helps in understanding and analysing the functions of the executive;
• Gulick considered division of work as the basis of organisation. His theory of
departmentalisation addresses the basis of division of work for the creation of departments.
73
MPA-102/OSOU
The four basis of departmentalisation viz, purpose, process, persons and place, popularly
known as the “4Ps”, are extensively used in the creation of departments/units in
organisations. Gulick and Urwick in their writings discussed in detail the application of many
other principles like single executive, staff principle, delegation, span of control, etc.
• Gulick, in his later writings focused on human factors in administration. Based on over fifty
years of analysis, Gulick observes: “after all governments are constituted of human beings,
are run by human beings and have as their main job, helping, contributing and serving human
beings”. He considered the human being as the dynamic factor intrinsic in the study of
administration;
• Gulick also emphasised time as the crucial factor in organisations. He identified five aspects
of time, viz., and time as input, time as an output, time as the flow of events and time as a gap
between two or more significant events or processes and finally timing as a management
policy. He considers time factor as critical in Public Administration;
• The principles of organisation of Gulick and Urwick were criticised for their contradictions
and inadequacy to answer practical organisational questions and also for their neglect of role
of human element in organisational processes. In his later writings Gulick emphasised the
role of human beings in organisations; and
• There cannot be any serious study of the science of administration without reference to the
principles of organisation. Understanding and theorising the dynamic nature of application of
these principles in different administrative situations is the major challenge of administrative
studies today.
4.14 ACTIVITIES
1. Give a brief description of the Principles of Organisations.

2. Describe Theory of Departmentalisation briefly.
3. Write a short note on Single Executive.
74
Block-2
Neo-Classical Thinkers
Unit-5: Elton Mayo
Unit-6: M.P. Follet
Unit-7: Chester Barnard
Unit-8: Chris Argyris

MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-5: GEORGE ELTON MAYO
Structure:
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The First Inquiry as Early Experiments
5.3 The Hawthorne Studies (1924-32)
5.3.1 Great Illumination
5.3.2 Human Attitudes and Sentiments
5.3.3 Social Organization
5.4 Absenteeism in Industries
5.5 Mayo’s Contribution to Administrative Thought
5.6 Elton Mayo’s Critical Appraisal
5.7 Activities
After reading this Unit, you should be able to:

● Comprehend the implications of the Human Relations Movement in context of
administrative behaviour.
● Ability to appreciate the contribution of George Elton Mayo as a distinct school of
thought pertaining to administrative studies.
● Develop faculty to objectively analyze the contribution of George Elton Mayo to the
field of Public Administration.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
George Elton Mayo (1880-1949) born at Adelaide, Australia and much renowned for
his distinct and influential Hawthorne studies and profound work in Industrial Sociology and
Industrial Psychology has been considered one of the pioneers of the human relations
approach to the organization. Elton Mayo, an expert of the fields of logic, philosophy,
sociology, psychology, management and medicine, went on to impart new dimensions to the
concepts of industrial sociology and industrial psychology in those times when Taylorism
was at its zenith. He devoted greater attention to the workers than to the machines and
emphasized the indispensability of the human aspect of organizations while looking into
technical and economic aspects of industries. In the course of his extensive travel in search
of suitable profession, Elton Mayo was in United States from 1926 to 1947 and held the post
of Professor of Industrial Research at the Graduate School of Business Administration,
Harvard University and conducted the most intensive studies on human relations known as
Hawthorne Experiments (1927-32) at the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Plant near
Chicago. Although these experiments were primarily related to industrial domain, they have
75
MPA-102/OSOU
organically witnessed the scientific, technical, political, social, economic and administrative
upheaval at global level. The evolution of Mayo’s humanistic thought, outlining the concepts
of social man and informal group in organizations, during the times of the World War I
(1914-1918) and reaching its zenith during the World War II (1939-1945) allowed him the
opportunity to study and analyze the impact of the catastrophe of the wars on human
behaviour, culture and civilization.
Not many researchers and research studies went on to enjoy the status and influence
for more than a quarter century as that was enjoyed by Elton Mayo and his studies. Mayo’s
academic works which are of wide significance are The Human Problems of an Industrial
Civilization (1933), The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (1945), The Political
Problems of an Industrial Civilization (1947). He also published five research papers in
different journals. Besides, Management and the Worker (1939) coauthored by Fritz
Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson, and The Elusive Phenomena (1977) by
Roethlisberger also offer a compilation of Mayo’s works. Interestingly, T. North Whitehead
authored The Industrial Worker: A Statistical Study of Human Relations in a Group of
Manual Workers (1938) provides extensive details about Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiments.
5.2 THE FIRST INQUIRY AS EARLY EXPERIMENTS
Elton Mayo initially started his research in a textile mill near Philadelphia in 1923, and
like his other contemporaries, focused his attention on fatigue, accidents, production levels,
rest periods, working conditions, etc. of the industrial labour as America was facing industrial
crisis during 1920-30s. As per the then prevalent circumstances, the textile mill was
considered a model organization offering all facilities to labour, possessing open-minded,
progressive and humane employers, but its mule-spinning department was in problem facing
high labour turnover. Seeing nothing else render any solution the problem was referred by the
firm to the Harvard University as a last resort. It was this which was the first major research
study undertaken by Elton Mayo after joining the Harvard School and named the study The
First Inquiry. He studied the problem of this department from various angles and accordingly
initiated experiments with management’s support. On the basis of the collected information,
Mayo started experimenting with rest periods, thereby eliminating the issue of physical
fatigue resulting into workers’ satisfaction, almost nullifying the turnover, causing rise in
production and enhanced morale. Additionally, he suggested a new formula to earn bonus
whereby the workers of the department were to earn bonus proportionate to their extra
production. Certain new schemes were introduced like the control of the rest periods was
brought completely in the workers’ hands leading to consultations among the workers thus
allowing social interaction, complete stopping of the spinning section for ten minutes and
more similar changes evinced a transformation in the outlook of the supervisors and workers,
all of them being satisfied with the new work culture. This stimulated a fresh approach
whereby the assumptions of ‘rabble hypothesis’ which assumes ‘mankind as a horde of
unorganized individuals actuated by self-interest’ eventually gave place to informal aspect,
group interest and non-economic incentives.
76
MPA-102/OSOU
5.3 THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES (1924-32)
These studies referred to the research project which initially aimed at studying the effects of
illumination on workers’ output and was initiated in November 1924 at the Hawthorne Works
of the Western Electric Company near Cicero, Illinois under the sponsorship of the National
Research Council. They were extensive studies divided into the following phases:
1. The Great Illumination (1924-27)
2. Human Attitudes and Sentiments (1928-31)
3. Social Organization (1931-32)
5.3.1 THE GREAT ILLUMINATION
By way of these experiments conducted during 1924-27 the impact of illumination upon
the levels and maintenance of production were examined and analyzed. The experiments
were conducted selecting two groups comprising six female workers in each, located in
separate rooms performing the same task. Initially, the rooms were equally illuminated, the
working conditions were stabilized and gradually variations in the intensity of lighting were
made periodically in one room. On the contrary, the lighting was kept unchanged throughout
the experiments in the other room. The researchers were surprised to find a steady increase in
the output of both the groups. Thus, it was established that the causes for the increased output
in both the control and experimental groups lied somewhere else and the illumination theory
playing the decisive role was rejected. It was actually at this point that Mayo got involved in
the experiments owing to the failure of the initial probing, and established that the test room
girls behaved as a social unit and developed a sense of participation in the experiment
realizing the increased attention of the research team. Here, by way of redesigning the
experiments and studying the groups again in the form of Relay Assembly Test Room, Mayo
proposed that work satisfaction was largely dependent on the informal social pattern of the
working group, supervisor could be trained to play his role differently taking personal interest
in his subordinates’ work and problems, workers should be allowed to ventilate their feelings
and convey freely about their needs to their officials, and enhanced morale and supervision
style are closely associated. It was this linkage between supervision, morale and productivity
that became the underpinning of the human relations movement. This entire network of
experiments has been hailed as the ‘Great Illumination’ because it went on to throw light on
the new dimensions of industrial relations.
5.3.2 HUMAN ATTITUDES AND SENTIMENTS
Another study was conducted by the Harvard research team in 1928 in the same plant as
an in-depth clinical study on human attitudes and sentiments by means of a Mass
Interviewing Programme. Herein, the workers were allowed to voice their opinion freely on
the management’s programmes and policies, the prevalent working conditions, treatment by
the management and supervisors, etc. The efforts eventually put forth that despite no actual
reforms having been introduced and no material changes having been brought about,
transformation in mental attitude of the workers could be noticed owing to the workers’
77
MPA-102/OSOU
perception on the entire exercise that they had been extended an opportunity to not only get
involved in management, but also “let off steam” thus making them feel better. Data analysis
further established lack of any correlation between the complaints (both material and
psychological) and the facts comprised; preoccupation with personal problems was also
found to be a performance inhibitor in many cases. The following conclusions were drawn by
the research team:
(i) Appreciation by the workers of the information collection method on the
company’s problems as they derived happiness from it on free expression and
their opinions getting valued.
(ii) Close observation of the supervisors’ works by the research team and grant of free
expression to their subordinates made the supervisors alert and watchful about
their work and mannerism.
(iii) The research team members themselves had acquired newer skills to understand
and deal with their fellow beings, consequent of the learning that both the personal
dimension and social situation at workplace are important to comprehensively
understand an employee’s problems, feelings and sentiments.
5.3.3 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
Final phase of the entire research programme undertaken at the Western Electric
Company was conducted by Mayo led research team in 1931-32 and this related to observing
the workers’ performance in their natural setting devoid of any formal methods for the study,
instead adopting observation method to analyze group behaviour. The study was termed as
The Bank Wiring Experiment comprising three groups of workmen possessing inter-related
tasks of soldering, fixing the terminals and finishing the wiring. All the participant workers
were paid wages on the basis of a group incentive plan and each member received his share
on the basis of the group’s total output. It was observed that the workers rolled out a clear-cut
standard output necessarily lower than the target that was fixed by the management; no group
member was allowed by its group to surpass the standard plan by either increasing or
decreasing the output instead were supposed to maintain uniform rate of output; and integrity
of the group’s social structure was strictly maintained by means of informal pressure and
adherence to set code of conduct.
It was discovered by Mayo’s team that the group’s behaviour was bereft of any concern
with the management and the company’s economic condition, rather were resentful towards
any efforts made by supervisors and technologists for enhancing efficiency perceiving them
as disruption of their standards and group pattern. It was found that the workers thought that
the experts follow logic of efficiency putting a constraint on their group activity, and the
supervisor category, on the other hand, represented authority to discipline the workers. The
implication was drawn that the “logic of efficiency” did not go well with the “logic of
sentiments” which had become the foundation stone of the social system. Therefore, it was
concluded that the management should pay necessary attention to the organization’s human
aspect comprising human situations, motivation and communication with the workers, instead
of overemphasizing on the organization’s economic and technical aspects. Mayo firmly held
78
MPA-102/OSOU
that the concept of authority should be based on social skills in securing cooperation rather
than expertise.
5.4 ABSENTEEISM IN INDUSTRIES
In 1943, Elton Mayo undertook his final research study to deal with the problem of
alarming labour turnover coupled with extremely high and chronic absenteeism in an industry
during the Second World War. Comparing the current scenario with their previous
experience, Mayo and his team found that this industry lacked informal groups and natural
leaders to entwine the workers into a team as the workers were not allowed any opportunity
to form such groups by their whimsical seniors resulting into heavy turnover and
absenteeism. Analyzing the entire situation, Mayo suggested the encouragement of formation
of informal groups by the management, treating the workers with a humanistic approach and
not treating them as cogs in the machine so that the workers do not get to develop a feeling of
exploitation at the management’s hands. He emphasized that the formation of informal
groups will help ensure the workers’ cooperation in the organization. Thus, these studies of
Mayo further led to an increased understanding of the human factor in work situations and of
a progressive employer-employee communication system.
5.5 MAYO’S CONTRIBUTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT
Emanating from his exhaustive Hawthorne studies, Elton Mayo’s remarkable

contribution to administrative thought is discussed as below:
 Human Relations Approach:
Elton Mayo helped in understanding and strengthening the importance of human factor in
administration. He emphasized the socio-psychological aspect of workers instead of treating
them as mechanistic. He and his research team concluded that informal or social work groups
impart a positive influence on the workers’ productivity and hence on the organization’s
growth. Many of Western Electric’s employees found their work dull and bonds with co-
workers, quite often influenced by a shared antagonism toward the supervisors, imparted
some meaning to their working lives and provided some protection from management thus
establishing that instead of management demands group-pressure was frequently a stronger
stimulus on worker productivity.
 Informal Organizations as Indispensable Part of Formal Organizations:
Elton Mayo established that an individual besides being the member of a formal organization
is simultaneously a member of informal organization which serves as his real guide and he
feels more associated with. He gave the concept of “social man” one who is motivated by
social needs, wanting rewarding on-the-job relationships, and responding more to work-group
pressures than to management control. He proposed that this new concept of ‘social man’ was
necessary to complement the old concept of ‘economic man’ motivated by personal economic
needs.
79
MPA-102/OSOU
Keith Devis, strengthening Mayo’s ideas on informal organizations, has enumerated the
following five practical benefits of these informal organizations which may be kept in mind
by the management:
i) It blends with the formal organization to make a workable system for getting the
work done;
ii) It lightens the workload of the formal manager and fills in some of the gaps in his
abilities;
iii) It gives suggestion and stability to work groups;
iv) It is a very useful channel of communication in the organization; and
v) Its presence encourages the manager to plan and act more carefully than he would
otherwise do.
 Understanding the Social Needs Significant for Organization’s Development:
Behavioural School and its followers view human behaviour to be imperative and of pivotal
significance with respect to managerial action. What is achieved, how it is achieved, and why
it is achieved are viewed in relation to their impact and influence on people, who are really
the important component of management. Followers of this school say, “Management does
not do; it gets others to do.” Extensive writings contributed by this school exhibit the need for
the manager to use the best human relations practices laying much emphasis on topics like
human relations, motivation, leadership, training and communication. The individual is
viewed as a socio-psychological being and the manager is expected to undertake tasks that
range from understanding and securing the best efforts from an employee by satisfying
psychological needs to comprehending the whole gamut of psychological behaviour of
groups as representing the totality of management. In this context, Elton Mayo held:
(i) Man is basically motivated by social needs and obtains his basic sense of identity
through relationships with others.
(ii) As a result of the industrial revolution and the rationalization of work, meaning
has gone out of work itself and must, therefore, be sought in the social
relationships on the job.
(iii) Man is more responsive to the social forces of the peer group than to the
incentives and controls of management.
(iv) Man is responsive to management to the extent that a supervisor can meet a
subordinate’s social needs and needs for acceptance.
The Hawthorne studies proved to be a watershed moment in the administrative and
management studies. As the research gained popularity, human behaviour at workplace came
to be recognized by the related experts as a complex and powerful force; and therefore, they
went on to emphasize that workers were not just given in the system, but had needs and
desires that the organization and task had to accommodate.
80
MPA-102/OSOU
 Essentially Understanding Psychological Impulses to Promote Good Organization:
As was observed by Elton Mayo: “What social and industrial research has not sufficiently
realized as yet is that these minor irrationalities of the ‘average normal’ person are
cumulative in their effect. They may not cause ‘breakdown’ in the individual but they do
cause ‘breakdown’ in the industry …… the not-logical response, that, which is in strict
conformity with a social code, makes for social order and discipline, for effective
collaboration in a restricted range of activity and for happiness and a sense of security in the
individual.” This observation sufficiently highlights the need for paying adequate attention to
understand the psychological aspect of the workers to understand the consequential impact on
their feelings, sentiments, performance and productivity in relation to their formal
organization thereby strengthening and elevating the organization.
 Refuting Rabble Hypothesis:
Etymologically, the word ‘rabble’ means crowd or mob and Rabble hypothesis takes the view
of men being a crowd of individuals stimulated by their individual interest alone. In the ties
when Taylor’s Scientific Management was widely endorsing this negative view of man as
was projected by this hypothesis, Elton Mayo emphatically refuted the rabble hypothesis
putting forward the below points:
(i) postulating that it was collaboration with others, not competition among a
disorganized horde, that was important;
(ii) stating that all individuals acted to protect their group status and not their self-
interest; and
(iii) repeating the Hawthorne findings that thinking was guided more by sentiment
than by logic.
“We have learned how to destroy scores of thousands of human beings in a moment of time;
we do not know how systematically to set about the task of inducing various groups and
nations to collaborate in the tasks of civilization. It is not the atomic bomb that will destroy
civilization. But civilized society can destroy itself …… if it fails to understand intelligently
and to control the aids and deterrents to cooperation.”
Thus, Elton Mayo tremendously contributed to enriching the administrative thought and
opening up new vistas in the disciplinary sphere by means of his pioneering efforts in
building the Human Relations Theory. His contribution can be well appreciated by valuing
the small primary working groups into which an organization informally distributes itself
with the group members freely interacting, sharing, experiencing, spending time while they
unknowingly lose their individual identity and acquire group identity, acting and reacting to
one another and collectively achieving the desired. Mayo has suggested that proper
understanding of such working groups is important for organizational efficiency.
81
MPA-102/OSOU
5.6 ELTON MAYO'S CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Elton Mayo’s findings of Hawthorne Experiments and his human relations approach
despite their widespread influence on the then dominant industrial management, failed to
acquire universal recognition and was subjected to severe criticism:
 Critics deplore the human relations concept to be dealing only with narrow range
internal variables and completely ignoring the environment. Critics like Carey
disapprove the Hawthorne experiment for having selected unduly small samples of
five or six girls which could not be taken as reliable sample to draw generalizations.
 The entire study lacked suitable methodology and scientific base courtesy faulty
designs, selection of small sample size across limited organizations thus yielding a
limited data plagued with clinical bias; several necessary parameters like monetary
incentives, leadership and discipline were disregarded under social context.
 The human relations school was condemned for adopting inadequate and
manipulative methods of study which tend to impose leader’s views on workers.
Loren Bartiz criticizes Mayoists as anti-union and pro-management. This sentiment
against the Hawthorne researchers was so overpowering that the popular trade unions
branded them as cow sociologists.
 Peter F. Drucker criticized human relationists for their ignorance towards economic
dimensions and sentimental predisposition towards the members of an organization
squarely neglecting the work and its purposes. He felt that the Harvard group
neglected the nature of work and instead focused on interpersonal relations,
encouraged a paternalistic domination of the workers’ private lives and thoughts by
their employers thus ignoring the dignity of the individuals.
 He encouraged the concept of administrative elite through which he seeks to achieve
organizational harmony by subordinating individuals and their group interests as there
is no place of conflict in his philosophy.
 The research team displayed absolute ignorance towards larger sociological and
technological systems.
All this criticism cannot diminish the significance of Mayo’s revolutionary,

innovative and substantial contribution to administrative organization theory. He made a
leading attempt to understand the problems of the industrial labour from an angle different
from the traditional approach of the scientific management era imparting a newer dimension
to industrial relations and organizational efficiency. Besides emphasizing human relations in
organizations, Mayo critically examined the employee-employer relations, worker turnover,
supervisory roles, etc. in context of the industries of that era and contributed as the moving
spirit behind all the experiments conducted at different point of times. His famous Hawthorne
studies are hailed as a landmark and historic contribution in administrative thought. Although
Mayo predominantly researched and offered solutions and suggestions pertaining to problems
faced by industrial sector, but his contributions are immensely and equally useful in
administrative systems of a state, particularly in the case of bureaucracy. His emphasis on
sound employer-employee communication systems, preferably from down to up,
82
MPA-102/OSOU
strengthened the way for adequate communication system between the lower rungs of the
organization and the higher levels. It is for his phenomenal contribution that Mayo is
regarded as one of the founding fathers of human relations concept in administrative thought.
Conclusively, the significance of Hawthorne investigations by Mayo was in discovering
informal organizations, which were later realized by the experts to be essentially existing in
all organizations. Further, the importance of informal group as social organization affecting
the behaviour of workers at work was brilliantly analyzed through these experiments.
5.7 ACTIVITIES
1. Comment upon the significance of Hawthorne Experiments in the growth of the

theory of organization.
2. Discuss the major contribution of Elton Mayo to administrative management thought.
3. Critically appreciate the status of George Elton Mayo as the Father of the Human
Relations Movement.
4. Elucidate the major criticism brought out against Elton Mayo's propositions.
 Maheshwari S.R., Administrative Thinkers, New Delhi, Laxmi Publications, Second

Edition 2014
 Prasad & Prasad, (ed) Administrative Thinkers, New Delhi, Sterling Publishers, Third
Edition 2017.
 Sapru R.K., Administrative Theories and Management Thought, New Delhi, PHI,
2013.
 Ragi, S. K., Administrative Thinkers, New Delhi, Laxmi Publications 2015
83
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-6: M.P. FOLLET
Structure:
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Life and Work
6.3 Constructive Conflict
6.4 Power, Authority and Control
6.5 Exercising Power, Authority and Control: The Issues of Orders
6.6 Depersonalsing Orders
6.7 Coordination
6.8 Leadership
6.9 Contribution/Evaluation of Mary Parker Follet
6.10 Conclusion
6.11 Activities
After reading this unit, you should b able to:

 Understand the idea of conflict and resolution;
 Understand the idea of power, authority and control;
 Know the importance of leadership.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Among the many contributors to administrative thought, Mary Parker

Follett occupies a prominent place, in what was then largely a man’s world. She turned her
attention from the traditional subjects of study – the state or the community – to concentrate
on the study of industry. In this context, she not only evolved principles of human association
and organization specifically in terms of industry, but also convinced large numbers of
businessmen of the practicability of these principles in dealing with current problems.
Follett blended theory, fact and ideal admirably. She demonstrated her beliefs by
drawing illustrations almost from every walk of life – from the affairs of government,
industry and business, home, war and peace, international institutions and wherever men and
women lived and worked together. She was a gifted writer with a rare capacity for presenting
original ideas with great simplicity and lucidity. Her writings are replete with practical
wisdom, deep flashes of intuition, undepartmentalized thinking and an all-pervading spirit of
democratic dynamism. Many of those associated with the ‘classical’ or scientific
management movement like Ordway Tead, Henri Fayol, Oliver Sheldon and Lyndall Urwick
were influenced by the philosophy of Follett.
84
MPA-102/OSOU
6.2 LIFE AND WORKS
Mary Parker Follett was born in Boston in USA in 1868. She had her early education
at Thayer Academy in Boston. She then went to Radcliff College where she studied English,
Political Economy and History. She also went to Newnham College in Cambridge. After her
studies, she developed a keen interest in social administration and social work in Boston. In
1900, she founded the Roxbury Debating Club. In 1909, she became Chairman of the School
House Sub Committee of the Women’s Municipal League, Boston. She did social work for
women, children and slum dwellers. In 1912, she took to vocational guidance and became a
member of the Placement Bureau Committee, Boston. In this capacity, she came in contact
with industry. During the period 1915-33, she presented papers on Industrial Organization at
annual conferences of business executives.
Thus, Follett, who had initially turned her attention to social administration and the
solutions of social problems moved smoothly to the realm of business management and
administration.
Follett’s major works are as follows:
1. The Speaker of the House of Representatives (1896);
2. The New State (1920);
3. Creative Experience (1924); and
4. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Works of Mary Parker Follett
(A collection of her papers, edited by Henry Metcalf and L. Urwick in 1941).
Follett’s major ideas could be discussed under the following heads:

1. Constructive Conflict;
2. Power, Authority and Control;
3. Coordination; and
4. Leadership.
6.3 CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT
Conflict and its Resolution

Mary Parker Follett accords an important place to the problems of conflict in her
writings. She advances the idea of “constructive conflict recognizing thereby that conflicts
should be regarded as a normal process in any activity of an organization by which socially
valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned”. To Follett,
conflict is neither good nor bad and has to be considered without passion or ethical pre-
judgments. Conflict is not warfare, but is only an appearance of difference – difference of
opinions, of interests not only between employer and employee but also between managers,
between directors or wherever differences appear. Conflict is not a wasteful outbreak of
incompatibilities, but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register
themselves for the enrichment of all concerned. Because of individual differences, conflict is
unavoidable in human organizations. Since conflict is unavoidable, instead of criticizing it as
something bad, one should try to capitalize on it, and make use of it to do something good.
85
MPA-102/OSOU
To Follett, conflict is a moment in the interaction of desires. Just as there are destructive ways
of dealing with such moments, there are also constructive ways. Conflict, at the moment of
appearing and focusing of difference, may be a sign of health and a prophecy of progress.
Drawing analogies from the universe, she says: “All polishing is done by friction. We get
music from the violin by friction and we left the savage state when we discovered fire through
friction.” The question then is how to make conflict work constructively.
Follett says: There are three ways of resolving a conflict: Domination, Compromise and
Integration.
a) Domination is a victory of one side over other. This is the easiest way of resolving
conflicts. Though it is the easiest for the moment, it is not successful in the long run.
But the problem with domination is that, in addition to the discomfort caused to the
‘dominated’, the repressed tendencies tend to rebel against the dominator whenever it
is possible. The confrontation will take place again.
b) Compromise is generally the way people settle most of their conflicts. In this, each
side gives up a little and settles the conflict so that the activity which has been
interrupted by the conflicts may go on. Each side involved in the conflict, gives up a
part of its ‘desire’ to settle the issue. Though compromise is a widely accepted
method of resolving conflicts, rarely people want to compromise, as this involves
giving up something.
c) Integration is the third method of resolving conflicts. Here, two desires are
integrated, and neither side needs to sacrifice its desires. Follett considers that
integration as a method of dealing with conflict has some advantages when compared
to compromise:
 Compromise does not create but only deals with the existing, whereas
 Integration creates something new, leads to invention and to the emergence of
new values.
 Integration leads to the use of better techniques.
 Integration saves time and resources.
 Integration goes to the root of the problem and puts an end to the conflict
permanently.
Steps to Achieving Integration

Follett also discusses the ways of achieving integration:
(a) The first step towards achieving Integration is to bring differences into the open, instead
of suppressing them. “We cannot hope to integrate our differences,” she asserts, “unless we
know what they are.” Therefore, what is needed is to uncover, identify and understand the
real issues involved in a conflict. This involves finding out the significant, rather than the
dramatic features involved in a conflict or controversy.
(b) The second step is the breaking up of the whole, i.e., to consider the demands of both
sides involved in the conflict and to break them into their constituent parts involves the
examination of symbols, use of which are unavoidable in organizational work. Examination
of symbols, in turn, involves a careful scrutinizing of the language used, to see what it really
means. To Follett, all language used is symbolic, and therefore, one should be on one’s guard
86
MPA-102/OSOU
to know as to what is being symbolized. Integration not only involves breaking up of the
whole but sometimes one has to do the opposite. It is important to articulate thewhole
demand, the real demand which is being obscured by miscellaneous minor claims or by
ineffective presentation.
(c) Anticipation of conflict is the third step. Anticipation of conflict does not mean the
avoidance of conflict but responding to it differently. To Follett, integration is like a game of
chess. Anticipation of response is by itself not enough; there is need for preparation for
response as well.
Obstacles to Integration
1. Integration requires high intelligence, keen perception and discrimination, and a brilliant
inventiveness. It is always easier to fight than to suggest better ways of doing a job. As long
as intelligence and inventiveness are not there, resolving conflicts through integration would
be difficult.
2. Another obstacle is people’s habit of enjoying domination. To many, integration is a tame
affair; it does not give them the thrill of conquest nor the satisfaction of victory.Follettsays
that the people with such habit patterns always prefer domination to integration.
3. A third obstacle to integration is that often the problems are theorized, instead of
takingthem as proposed activities or practical issues needing immediate solution. Quite often,
people, forgetting that disagreements will disappear if they stop theorizing, go on theorizing
the problem on hand. Follett says that intellectual agreement alone does not solve conflicts
and bring integration.
4. Language used is the fourth obstacle to integration. The language used must be favourable
to reconciliation and should not arouse antagonism and perpetuate the conflict. Sometimes
language used even creates new disputes which were not there earlier.
5. A fifth obstacle to integration is the undue influence exerted by the leaders.
6. Finally, the most important of all obstacles to integration is lack of training. Follett says
that in most cases there is a tendency to ‘push through’ or to ‘force through’ the plans
previously arrived at, based on preconceived notions. Therefore, she pleads that there should
be courses to teach the art of cooperative thinking, to master the technique of integration,
both for workers and managers.
6.4 POWER, AUTHORITY AND CONTROL
Follett gives special attention to the problems of Power, Authority and Control. She
reveals profound, penetrating and strikingly original insights in her analysis of power. She
defines Power as “the ability to make things happen, to be a causal agent, to initiate
change”. Power is the capacity to produce intended effects. It is an instinctive urge inherent
in all human beings. She makes a distinction between ‘Power-Over’ and ‘Power-With’. The
former may tend to be ‘coercive-power’ while the latter is a jointly developed ‘coactive-
power’. Power-With is superior to Power-Over, as it is a self-developing entity which
promotes better understanding, reduces friction and conflict and encourages cooperative
endeavour. However, Follett does not think it possible to get rid of power-over, but thinks
that one should try to reduce it. This can be accomplished by integrating the desires, obeying
87
MPA-102/OSOU
the law of situation and through functional unity. In a functional unity, each has his/her
functions and s/he should have the authority and responsibility which go with that function.
Follett also believes that power can never be delegated or handed out or wrenched from
someone as it is the result of knowledge and ability. But, she feels, we can create conditions
for the development of power.
Follett defines Authority as vested power – the right to develop and exercise power.
Authority in terms of status and the subordination of one to another offends human dignity
and may cause undesirable reactions and friction. Therefore, it cannot be the basis of
organization. According to her, authority stems from the task being performed and is derived
from the situation, and suggests that function is the true basis from which authority is
derived. Therefore, she says that central authority i.e., derivation of authority from the Chief
Executive should be replaced by Authority of Function in which each individual has final
authority within the allotted functions. She feels that authority can be conferred on others and
such conferment is not delegation. She expresses the clear terms that ‘delegation of authority’
should be an ‘obsolete expression’. Like authority, responsibility also flows from the function
and situation. Therefore, one should ask “For what is one responsible?” than “To whom is
s/he responsible?” Follett also believes in the pluralistic concept of responsibility or
cumulative responsibility.
Control, like Authority and Responsibility, is an important aspect to achieve

organizational goals. Unlike classical thinkers, Follett believes in Fact-Control rather than
man-control and in Correlated-Control than super-imposed control. Since facts vary from
situation to situation, control should depend upon the facts of each situation, instead of
superiors controlling subordinates. Similarly, situations are too complex for central control to
be meaningfully effective. Therefore, Follett suggests that control mechanisms should be
correlated at many places in the organizational structure. If organizations are to be well
integrated, unified and coordinated, control should be designed and developed as a part of the
unifying process. A unified organization is a self-regulating and self-directing organism. In
all such organizations, Follett feels, control tends to be self-control.
6.5 EXERCISING POWER, AUTHORITY AND CONTROL: THE ISSUE

OF ORDERS
Follett examines at length the question of giving Orders and the principles underlying
the different ways of giving orders. She says that there are four important steps in giving
orders: (1) a conscious attitude – realize the principles through which it is possible to act on
in any matter; (2) a responsible attitude to decide which of the principles we should act on;
(3) an experimental attitude – try experiments and watch results; (4) pooling the results.
Follett says that most people, without even knowing the different principles that underlie
giving orders, give orders every day. To her, to know the principles that underlie any given
activity is to take a conscious attitude. After recognizing the different principles, one must
think of what principles s/he should act on and then s/he should give orders in accordance
with those principles. To give orders based on principles is a responsible attitude. Trying
experiments, noting whether they are successful or a failure and analyzing as to why they are
88
MPA-102/OSOU
successful or a failure is taking an experimental attitude. Finally, one should pool the
experiences of all and see to what extent and in what manner the methods of giving orders
can be changed if the existing methods are found inadequate. Many people think that giving
orders is very simple and expect that they would be obeyed without question. But, in practice,
issuing of orders is surrounded by many difficulties. Past life, training, experience, emotions,
beliefs and prejudices form certain habits of mind, which the psychologists call
‘habitpatterns’, ‘action-patterns’ and ‘motor-sets’. Unless these habit-patterns and certain
mental attitudes are changed, one cannot really change people. Before giving orders, the
employer should also consider the ways and means of forming the ‘habits’ among the
employees to ensure acceptance of the orders. This involves four important steps: first, the
officials should be made to see the desirability of a new method; second, the rules of the
office should be so changed as to make it possible for the officials to adopt the new method;
third, a few people should be convinced in advance to adopt the new method to set an
example. The last step is what psychologists call intensifying the attitude to be released. This
will prepare the way for the acceptance of orders. Follett then turns her attention to the
environment of giving orders and says that the response to the orders depends upon the place
and the circumstances under which orders are given. She says that the “strength of
favourable response to an order is in inverse ratio to the distance the order travels”.
Efficiency is always in danger of being affected whenever the longdistance order is
substituted for face-to-face suggestion. The manner of giving orders is also important.
Alleged harassing, tyrannical and overbearing conduct of officials is an important reason for
many industrial controversies. Treating men without regard to their feelings and self-respect
would result in strikes and strained industrial relations. The language used often arouses
wrong behavioural patterns. The more one is bossed over, the more one develops opposition
to bossing.
6.6 DEPERSONALISING ORDERS
From the foregoing it is evident that giving of orders is a complicated process.

Therefore, either people stop giving orders, or become ‘authoritarian’ to ensure compliance to
their orders. To avoid too much of bossism in giving orders or giving no orders at all, Follett
suggests depersonalizing the orders. This involves a study of the problem to discover the
‘law of the situation’ and obeying it by all concerned. One should not give orders to another,
but both should agree to take orders from the situation. If orders are a part of the situation, the
question of someone giving and someone receiving orders does not arise and both take the
orders from the situation. Follett says that two heads of departments do not give orders to
each other. Each studies the situation and decisions are made as the situation demands.
Depersonalizing orders, however, does not mean that one should not exercise authority. It
only means exercise of authority of the situation. She gives the example of a boy who says no
and then gets a pail of water for his mother. In this case, he resents the command, but
recognizes the demand of the situation.Follett also observes that the situation is never static, it
always develops and evolves. Therefore, the order too should never be static; but should
always keep up with the situation. The external orders can never keep pace with the situations
89
MPA-102/OSOU
and only those drawn fresh from the situation can do so. Therefore, Follett says, the order
must always be integral to the situation.
6.7 COORDINATION
To Follett, planning is a scheme of self-adjusting and self-coordinating the various

and varying interests. The process of self-adjusting is possible only though Coordination. To
Follett, coordination “implies harmonious ordering of parts”. To achieve coordination, she
postulates four principles of organization:
1. Coordination as the reciprocal relating of all factors in a situation: All factors in a
situation have to be related to one another and these interrelationships themselves must be
taken into account.
2. Coordination by direct contact: Responsible people in the organization must be in direct
contact with one another irrespective of their position in the hierarchy. She believes that
horizontal communication is as important as vertical chain of command.
3. Coordination in the early stages: All the people concerned should be involved at the
stage of policy formulation itself than being involved only at the implementation stage. Such
participation at the early stages will benefit the organization through increased motivation
and morale.
4. Coordination as a continuing process: Follett emphasizes the need for a permanent
machinery to achieve coordination from planning to activity and from activity to further
planning. The advantages of such machinery, Follett feels would be immense. Similarly she
emphasizes the importance of information based on continuous research. The information
itself would be a form of control, for there would be a tendency to act in accordance with the
information given, if it were accepted as accurate.
6.8 LEADERSHIP
Follett gives considerable attention and discusses at length the process of Leadership.
She believes that the old ideas of leadership are changing because of the changes in the
concept of human relations, and developments in management. To Follett, a leader is not the
President of the organization or Head of the Department, but one “who can see all around a
situation, who sees it as related to certain purposes and policies, who sees it evolving into the
next situation, who understands how to pass from one situation to another”. According to
her, a leader is “the man who can energize his group, who knows how to encourage initiative,
how to draw from all what each has to give”. He is “the man who can show that the order is
integral to the situation”. Leadership goes to the man who can grasp the essentials of an
experience and, as we say, “can see it as a whole” and “to whom the total inter-relatedness is
most clear”.
He is the expression of a harmonious and effective unity which he has helped to form
and which he is able to make a going concern. Such people, Follett feels, are found not just at
the apex but throughout the organization. According to Follett, coordination, definition of
purpose and anticipation are the three functions of the leader. A leader has also to organize
90
MPA-102/OSOU
experience of the group and transform it into power. Follett stresses that leaders are not only
born but can be made through education and training in organization and management.
Follett distinguishes between three different types of leadership:
Leadership of Position, Leadership of Personality, and Leadership of Function. In the
first, the leader holds a position of formal authority and in the second, one becomes a leader
because of his forceful personality. One who holds both position and personality can ‘lead’
much more easily. But in modern
organizations, it is not the persons of formal authority or of personality who ‘lead’ but
those who possess expert knowledge. They exercise leadership because others are influenced
by their judgments. “The man possessing the knowledge demanded by a certain situation
tends in the best managed business, and other things beings equal, becomes the leader at that
moment.”
Thus leadership goes to the man with the knowledge of the situation, who understands
its total significance and who can see it through. Such experts can give orders even to those
of higher rank. Leadership of function is inherent in the job. Though personality plays a large
part in leadership, Follett believes that leadership of function is becoming more important
than leadership of personality. Follett also believes that the success of any organization
depends on its being “sufficiently flexible to allow the leadership of function to operate fully
– to allow the men and women with the knowledge and the technique to control the
situation”. Thus, Follett has called attention to the emergence in American life of“leadership
by function”, long before the term “Situational Leadership” came into use.
6.9 CONTRIBUTION/EVALUATION OF MARY PARKER FOLLETT
Follett provided several contributions to the development of management, the most

important being her managerial philosophy with its emphasis on the spirit of democratic
dynamism and human behavior. She maintained that attitudinal change is required for the
integrative process to work properly. Individuals must develop a cooperative attitude that
fosters a search for integrative solutions to conflict and aspire only to exercise, ‘power-with’
rather than grasp for ‘power-over’. Appreciating her contribution, George Claude writes:
“Mary Parker Follett was a true management philosopher, a pioneer who helped span the
gap between the mechanistic approach of Taylor and our contemporary approach
emphasizing human behavior”.Metcalf and Urwick observe: “Her conceptions were in
advance of her time. They are still in advance of current thinking. But they are a gold-mine of
suggestions for anyone who is interested in the problems of establishing and maintain human
cooperation in the conduct of an enterprise”. Indeed, much of what Follett wrote has become
accepted and may now seem commonplace. Comparing Follett with Florence Nightingale
(the founder of modern nursing), Bertram Gross comments: “But she was no less an
innovator, and her intellectual horizons were much broader”. Follett was again the first
management thinker who endeavoured to build a theory for the professionalization of
business management. Pugh, Hickson and Hinings have this to say about Follett: “The core
of her contribution is the proposition that in a democratic society, the primary task of
management is to so arrange the situation that people cooperate readily of their own
91
MPA-102/OSOU
accord”.While a few writers on organization label Follett as a ‘classical’ thinker, others

criticize her stating that ‘there is nothing classical in her ideas’. But it must be stated that
Follett herself criticized the classical theory of management for its one-sidedness,mechanism,
and for ignoring psychological aspects. But her own ideas on various aspects of
administration and management were not free from criticisms. She was criticized for ignoring
the social nature or the processes involved in the management of organizations. “She threw
all real social, class conflicts off the scale and considered only psychological conflicts rising
mainly from lack of understanding, misapprehensions and differences in the personnel
qualities. Her ideas on integration were criticized as being illusory.” (Gvishiani).
She was also criticized for not interpreting the social content of organization scientifically.
Baker observed that Follett was never a systematic writer; she threw out interesting ideas
more or less randomly and, therefore, the thread of consistency was hard to find and harder to
follow. Not all her readers would see where her thoughts would lead them. Therefore, it was
observed that her valuable ideas and useful recommendations do not conform to a
theoretically well-founded and integrated system. Notwithstanding these criticisms, Follett’s
contribution to administrative theory is “seminal and indeed prophetic”; her ideas in the
realm of conflict, integration, coordination, control, authority and leadership convince
everyone about the validity and justification of the multi-dimensional focus of her
universalistic approach. As Metcalf and Urwick have observed: “Her conceptions were in
advance of her time. They are still in advance of current thinking. But they are a gold-mine of
suggestions for anyone who is interested in the problems of establishing and maintaining
human cooperation in the conduct of an enterprise.”
6.10 CONCLUSION
Follett made significant contributions to management theory and practice in the

following areas: management's guiding principles and professionalization, incorporation of
religion, authority and power, employees, and social development. Follett's contributions to
classical theory and practice also had an impact on the administration of scientific,
bureaucratic, and administrative processes. Finally, managers in modern society can benefit
from Follett's contribution. This is because it has fundamentally altered how managers
interact with their workforce and the wider community.
6.11 ACTIVITIES
1. Examine M.P. Follett’s views on Power, Authority and Control.

2. Briefly Explain the Contribution of MP Follet
3. Write a short note of Depersonalising Order.
92
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-7: CHESTER IRVING BARNARD
Structure:
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Life and works of Chester Irving Barnard
7.3 Contribution of C I Barnard
7.3.1 Organization as a cooperative system
7.3.2 Formal and Informal Organizations
7.3.3 Theory of authority
7.3. 4 Communications
7.3.5 Zone of Indifference
7.3.6 Responsibility
7.3.7 Decision-making
7.3.8 Functions of Executive
7.3.9 Executive Effectiveness
7.3.10 Organizational Equilibrium
7. 4 Critical Evaluation
7. 5 Conclusion
7.6 Key Concepts
7.7 Activities
7.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, the learners will be able to :

 The concept of organization
 The importance of formal and informal organizations
 The concept of authority
 The functions of executive
 The relevance of Barnard’s contribution to administrative theory
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The study of administration has a long history. However, the formal study of
administration began with what has come to be known as the scientific movement. The
impetus for this approach can be traced directly to the period of the Industrial Revolution
with its emphasis on the rational, the efficient, and the scientific. The contemporary field of
administrative study is most generally characterized by a search for the "universals" upon
which a science of administration must rest. In this regard, many scholars have examined the
individual relationships with others for the achievement of common purposes in organization.
93
MPA-102/OSOU
The pioneering works of the classicists, neo-classicists, and of more recent

contributors have considerable relevance for present-day administrative thought. The
classical thinkers-Luther Gulick, L Urwick, F.W. Taylor, Henry Fayol- emphasised the
importance of the structure and universal principles of organization, while the neoclassicists-
Elton Mayo, M.P. Follet, Chris Argyris and Chester Irving Barnard- focused on the informal
dimension of the organization. Among the neo-classicists, Chester Irving Barnard has done
pioneering work focusing on the behaviour of the human-being working in an organization.
Hence, an understanding of inside-human beings, particularly behaviour, motivations, social
interaction, etc., is important.
7.2 LIFE AND WORKS OF CHESTER IRVING BARNARD
The study of life and academic works of administrative thinkers helps us to

understand how the events in his/her life made them to study the organizations and
contribute to systematic theory construction. Chester Irving Barnard, (November 7, 1886 –
June 7, 1961), was an American business executive, public administrator and the author of
several books. He was born on November 7, 1886 at Malden, Massachusetts, USA in a very
poor family. He had his education while working hard for his livelihood; he undertook
diverse tasks like typing, conducting a dance orchestra, etc., to pursue
education. Barnard joined as a statistician with the Bell Telephone company, in 1909,
subsequently became its President, in 1928. He worked both in government and private
organizations and held important positions. He taught in various universities in the USA and
published books on management. His experiences in various capacities and in different
organizations gave him an opportunity to understand the administrative process. He is
inspired by the writings of Oliver Sheldon, Elton Mayo, MP. Follet and others in
understanding and analysing management.
Barnard’s landmark book “the Functions of the Executive” (1938) is the most
thought-provoking book on organization and management. He viewed organizations as
systems of cooperation of human activity, and noted that they are typically short lived as they
do not meet the criteria-viz, effectiveness and efficiency, which are essential for the survival
of the organizations. The impact of Barnard’s thought is considerable both on theory and
practice of management and has inspired a number of outstanding thinkers like Herbart
Simon. The major contributions of Barnard can be presented as below.
7.3 CONTRIBUTION OF C I BARNARD
Barnard, an American business executive, is considered as father of social system

school. He viewed the organizations as system of cooperation of human activity and proposed
the theory of ‘contribution-satisfaction-equilibrium’ as the basis for individual contribution to
organizations. He rejected the theory of economic man and analysed multiplicity of
satisfactions and inducements as the basis for actions in organizations. He has emphasized
more on the informal organizations and viewed it as complimentary to formal organizations.
94
MPA-102/OSOU
Introducing ‘acceptance’ as the basis of authority, Barnard explains the conditions of

acceptance and proposes the concept of ‘zone of indifference’ as the basis of for acceptance
for orders. Elaborating the functions of executive, he classified them under three heads, viz,
formulation of purpose and objectives; maintenance of organization communication
communication and securing essential services from the individual.
7.3.1 ORGANIZATION AS A COOPERATIVE SYSTEM
Barnard suggests that the classical concept of organization does not fully explain the
features of an organization. He has defined formal organization ‘as a system of consciously
coordinated activities or courses of two or more persons’. In this definition, he emphasizes
the system of interactions. It is a system composed of the activities of human beings, a system
in which the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts and each part is related to every
other part in some significant way. As a system, it is held together by some common purpose
by the willingness of certain people to contribute to the operation of the organization, and by
the ability of such people to communicate with each other. In his opinion, an organization
exists when the following three conditions are fulfilled:
(i) There are persons able to communicate with each other;
(ii) They are willing to contribute to the action, and,
(iii)They attempt to accomplish a common purpose.
Thus, the organization is a social system which coordinates the activities of persons for
achievement of goals.
Barnard strongly disapproves the concept of economic man and maintains that
economic rewards are ineffective beyond the subsistence level. He propounds the theory of
contribution-satisfaction equilibrium. He has identified four specific inducements to get the
satisfaction, viz., (i) material inducements such as money, things or physical conditions; (ii)
personal non-material opportunities for distinction, prestige and personal power; (iii)
desirable physical conditions of work; and (iv) ideal benefactions such as the pride of
workmanship, sense of adequacy, altruistic (human) service for family or others. However,
Barnard cautioned management that inducements cannot be applied mechanically, and their
proportion depends on particular situations, times and individuals.
Barnard also mentions about four types of general incentives that are necessary to
motivate the individuals in the organization. They are: (i) associate attractiveness based on
compatibility with associates; (ii) the adoption of working conditions to habitual methods and
attitudes; (iii) the opportunity for the feeling of enlarged participation in the course of events;
and (iv) the condition of communing with others, a condition based on the personal comfort
in social relations and the opportunity for comradeship and for mutual support in personal
attitudes.
95
MPA-102/OSOU
7.3.2 FORMAL AND INFORMAL ORGANIZATIONS
Organizations can be categorised into two parts: formal and informal. The formal
organization has consciously coordinated interactions which have a deliberate and common
purpose. While the informal organization refers to those social interactions which do not have
consciously coordinated joint purpose. Barnard describes informal organizations as the
aggregate of personal contacts and interactions and the associated groupings of people. They
are indefinite, structure less and are a shapeless mass of varied densities. Such informal
organizations will have a serious impact on the members of formal organizations, thereby
bringing a continuous interaction between the formal and informal organizations.
Though the relationship between the formal and informal organizations appears to be
a contradiction in the very nature of their definitions, it is a fact of vital importance. In fact,
Barnard has suggested that the executives should encourage the development of informal
organizations to serve as a means of communication, to bring cohesion in the organization,
and to protect the individuals from dominance of the organization. Informal organizations are
very important in studying organizational behaviour.
7.3.3 THEORY OF AUTHORITY
Barnard does not agree with the classical view that authority transcends from the top
to down. He has given a new concept of authority which is termed as ‘acceptance theory of
authority’ or ‘bottom-up authority’. Barnard defines authority as “the character of a
communication (order) in a formal organisation by virtue of which it is accepted by a
contributor or ‘member’ of the organisation as governing the action he contributes”. This
indicates that for Barnard authority consists of two aspects; first, the subjective aspect, the
personal aspect, the accepting of communication as authoritative and second, the objective
aspect – the character in the communication by virtue of which it is accepted.
According to him, a person does not obey an order because it has been given by a
superior but he will accept a communication as being authoritative only when four conditions
are met simultaneously. They are: (i) he can understand communication; (ii) he believes that
it is not inconsistent with organizational purpose; (iii) he believes that it to be compatible
with his personal interest as a whole; and (iv) he is mentally and physically able to comply
with it.
Thus, according to Barnard, the authority of a superior does not depend on his
position in the organization, but on its acceptance by subordinates, it is in sharp contrast to
the classical theory according to which the authority flows through well laid out hierarchical
patterns.
7.3.4 COMMUNICATIONS
Communication system is the important key to the organizational achievement.

Barnard identified three basic principles for effective communication in any organization.
96
MPA-102/OSOU
They are: (i) everyone in the organization must know what the channels of communication
are; (ii) everyone must have access to a formal communication channel; (iii) lines of
communication should be kept short and direct. Barnard opines that a common purpose in an
organization can only be achieved if it is commonly known, and to be known it must be
communicated effectively in language, oral and written.
7.3.5 ZONE OF INDIFFERENCE
Authority is surrounded by a ‘Zone of Indifference”. Chester Barnard calls the zone of

action in which the superior is free to act “the zone of indifference”. He used the term to refer
to employees’ disposition to accede to authority within a sphere of action. The size and nature
of this zone will be wider or narrower depending upon the degree to which the inducements
exceed the burden and sacrifices that determine the individual’s adhesion to the organisation.
The zone of indifference can be expanded depending on the effectiveness of greater
inducements. If the inducements are not adequate, the range of orders that are likely to be
accepted by the members of the organisations would be limited. Therefore, the executive
should be conscious of the zone. He should issue only those orders, which would fall within
the zone and are acceptable.
The acceptance of authority in organizations, as mentioned earlier, depends on the

zone of indifference. If the orders arranged in order of their acceptability to the person
affected, they fall into three different categories, they are: (i) those which will clearly be
unacceptable and not obeyed; (ii) those which are on neutral line- either just acceptable or
just unacceptable; (iii) those which are unquestionably acceptable. Orders which fall under
the last category come within the zone of indifference.
7.3.6 RESPONSIBILITY
Barnard believes that responsibility is the most important function of the executive.
He viewed responsibility from the point of morality. Responsibility is not determined by any
one single moral code but by a complex set of moral, legal, technical, professional and
institutional codes. These codes regulate the working of organizations. In this process of
regulation, the internal moral sanction of individuals is more effective than the external
sanctions. Since individual conduct or behaviour is governed by a complex codes, it may
result in conflicts. Such conflicts may result in: (i) the paralysis of action accompanied by
emotional tension, and ending in a sense of frustration, blockade, uncertainty, or in loss of
decisiveness and lack of confidence; or (ii) there is conformance to one code and violation of
the other, resulting in a sense of guilt, discomfort, dissatisfaction, or a loss of respect; or (iii)
there is found some substitute action which satisfies immediate desire or impulse or interest
or the dictates of one code, and yet conforms to all other codes.
97
MPA-102/OSOU
7.3.7 DECISION-MAKING
Decision-making in organizations, according to Barnard, is a specialised process. He

emphasises that organizational decisions need not always be positive. He says that the fine art
of executive decision consists in not deciding questions that are not pertinent, in not deciding
prematurely, in not making decisions that cannot be made effectively and in not making
decisions that others should make. Based on his long years of experience, Barnard articulates
that decision making in organizations is a difficult task. The executives generally avoid
taking decisions, due to fear of criticism; further there is also a tendency not to delegate
decisional powers resulting in the executives being overwhelmed with the burdens of
decision-making.
7.3.8 FUNCTIONS OF EXECUTIVE
In organizations executives perform various functions necessary to ensure

coordination of the cooperative system. They also act as channels of communication. Barnard
has identified three types of functions which an executive performs in a formal organization.
They are:
(i) The maintenance of organizational communication through a system of organization,
i.e., through formal interactions; this function has three important phases. One, defining the
scheme of the organization or defining organizational positions, specification of duties and
division of labour; two, maintaining a personnel system; and third, securing informal
organization to promote means of organizational communication.
(ii) The securing of essential services from individuals in the organization so as to
achieve organizational purpose; it has two main aspects, viz., one, bringing of persons into
cooperative relationship with the organization; and, two, eliciting of services after they have
been brought into that relationship. These can be achieved by maintaining morale, providing
incentives as well as doing supervision, control and imparting training to the individuals
working in the organization.
(iii) The formulation and definition of organizational purpose. The purpose of
organization must be accepted by all the contributors to the system of efforts. Purpose is
defined in terms of specifications of the work to be done and specifications are made when
and where the work is being done. The purpose can be geographical, social and functional
and a single executive can accomplish and can do only that part of it which relates to his
position.
7.3.9 EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
Barnard has emphasised on the importance of organizational leadership, as he felt that

it was one of the most important factors in the organization. The organizational effectiveness
depends on the high order of responsible leadership. While cooperation is the creative
process, leadership is the indispensable fulminator of its forces. Leadership is the most
strategic factor in securing cooperation from people. Executive leadership demands high
calibre, technological competence, and social skills. The executive leadership should not have
98
MPA-102/OSOU
preconceived notions and false ideologies. It should be above personal predilections and
prejudices. Generally, the leadership is likely to commit the mistakes. They are- (i) the over
simplification of the economy of organization life; (ii) disregarding the reality of informal
organization and its necessity; (iii) an inversion of emphasis upon the objective and
subjective aspects of authority; and (iv) a confusion of morality with responsibility. The
executive. Therefore, we should take adequate care to overcome these problems.
7.3.10 ORGANIZATIONAL EQUILIBRIUM
Barnard was concerned about the development of the organization through the social
system. Organizational equilibrium refers to the matching of individual efforts and
organizational efforts to satisfy the individuals. The cooperation of individuals within the
organization brings forth new activities. The organization must afford satisfaction to
individuals comprising it; it is required to maintain equilibrium in the organization. The
equilibrium is not static but dynamic. The demands and aspirations of individuals change and
the organization has to cope with the dynamic situation. Further, Organizational equilibrium
depends on the individuals working in it, other organizations and society as a whole.
Therefore, the organization has to take into account the changes in the society.
Organizational equilibrium can be perceived not only through logical appraisal but
also through analysis and intuition. Many non-logical factors also enter into organizational
analysis. Therefore, the reasons for an action should not only be logical but also must appeal
to those attitudes, predilections, prejudices, emotions and mental background that cover
action.
7.4 CRITICISM EVALUATION
Many scholars such as Kenneth Andrews, Matthew Ensor and RJS Baker, have
expressed doubts about Barnard’s views on organization. They mostly attributed that his
ideas are in abstract form and absence of practical examples from experience. Barnard’s
definition of authority, according to Andrews, understates the role of objective authority and
appears to assign individuals the choice of acceptance or rejection rather than participation in
the active integration of conflicting alternatives and interpretations. He further observed that
leadership is effectively but abstractly examined; its problems are not analysed.
Barnard views on authority are criticised for understanding the role of objective authority
and for giving an impression that individuals will have an option to accept or reject authority
in organization.
7. 5 CONCLUSION
Chester Irving Barnard is one of the earliest behaviourists and realized the importance
of the human element in the organization. He is considered to be the outstanding theorist in
modern administrative thought. He introduced social concepts into the analysis of managerial
99
MPA-102/OSOU
functions and processes. While Taylor and his associates concentrated on improving the task
efficiency of the individual, Barnard on the other hand, started with individuals, moved to
cooperative effort, and ended with executive functions. His views on executive leadership,
authority, organisational effectiveness, organizational equilibrium etc., demonstrate a
profound understanding of the complexity of organisation process. He highlighted the
broader issues of administration such as formal and informal organisational units,
organisational relation to the external environment, and equilibrium among organisational
units. His contributions vastly enriched organisation theory.
To sum-up, Barnard believed that human beings within the organization could be
better motivated by fulfilling the needs of companionship and support rather than by mere
economic rewards. He has given importance both to formal and informal organizations,
organizational leadership and equilibrium which he thought was the most important factor in
organizational management. The process of formal and informal organizations and their
mutual interaction has practical utility and scientific value to everyone interested in
understanding social and economic problems. His ‘acceptance concept of authority’
leadership as a process of fulfilling the purposes of organization and management by consent
have an enormous contemporary relevance and reinforce the democratic spirit in the modern
organizations. The views of Barnard still hold relevance even to date as they are the
combination of intellect and experience and are the outcome of rational analysis of reality,
viewing the situation as a whole.
7.6 KEY CONCEPTS
1. Behavioural sciences: it includes the disciplines of anthropology, psychology, sociology.

They emphasis on psychological aspects of management. Behavioural scientists such as
Carl Rogers, JL Moreno, Kurt Lewin, Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, Chester Barnard
and others, have contributed to the knowledge of organizational dynamics since the days
of the Hawthorne studies.
2. Scientific management: its core assumption is that the individual worker is simply an
operator and not a social being. Another assumption of this approach is that money is the
chief motivating factor, so far as the worker is concerned.
3. Inducements and motivation: Chester Barnard deemphasized economic motives and
stressed on inducements such as desirable working conditions, satisfying associations at
the work place, opportunity for participation, power and a chance to experience pride of
workmanship. He believed that in the importance of persuasion as a means of motivation
and underplayed the role of coercion in organization.
4. Human relation approach: it is a basically a response to the needs and demands of
industrial organization where the production has to be increased.
7.7 ACTIVITIES
1. Explain the Life and works of Chester Irving Barnard.

2. Why has Barnard called the organization as a cooperative system?
100
MPA-102/OSOU
3. What is contribution-satisfaction equilibrium?

4. Examine the importance of informal organizations in modern enterprises.
5. Examine the factors that determine organizational effectiveness.
 Chester Irving Barnard(1935–1946): “Organization and Management: Selected

Papers”. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
 Chester Irving Barnard, (1938): “The Functions of the Executive”, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
 James, PA & Amuruth Rao, (2004: 2010), Chester Irving Barnard in Prasad, D.
Ravindra, V.S. Prasad, P. Satyanarayan and Y Pardhasaradhy, (ed) “Administrative
Thinkers”, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
 Kenneth R Andrews views in Chester Irving Barnard, The Functions of the Executive,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 Prasad, L.M, (2004): “Organisation Behaviour”, New Delhi: Sultan Chand & Sons.
 RJS Baker, (1972): Administrative theory and Public Administration,
London: Hutchinson University.
 Mohit Bhattachrya (2002): New Horizons of Public Administration, New Delhi:
Jawahar Publishers.
101
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT 8: CHRIS ARGYRIS (1923-2013)
Structure:
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Life and work of Chris Argyris
8.3 Argyris’ views on Human Personality
8.4 His critique of Formal organizations
8.5 Argyris’ critique of Simon’s theory of rational man in an organization and
Administration Behaviour
8.6 Argyris’ views on Organizational Development and Organizational Change
8.7. Argyris’ views on Learning Organizations
8.8 A critical evaluation of Argyris’ thought
8.9 Conclusion
8.10 Key Concepts
8.11 Activities
After studying this Unit, you should be able to:

 Understand Argyris’ views on Human personality and its influence on the working of
an organization
 Describe the impact of Formal organizations on individuals
 Identify the significance of organizational development through inter-personal
competence
 To understand the structure of future organizations
 To understand the importance of T-Group training for employees
 Understand Argyris’ criticisms of Simon’s rational man in an organization
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The behavioural scientists of the 1930s and 1940s have given a new orientation to
administrative thought by focusing attention on the role of leadership in an organization,
group dynamics and motivation. They were not merely satisfied with interpreting the
organization; they were also interested in developing it by introducing some changes in its
structure and processes. These behaviouralists also advocated a human relations approach
which laid greater emphasis on the study of major psychological processes such as
perception, learning and motivation that reveal a worker’s personality more than other
mechanical factors. Chris Argyris is one such behavioural social scientist who formulated his
102
MPA-102/OSOU
ideas based on his understanding of human nature and individual psychology. He vigorously
worked for individual and organizational development.
8.2 LIFE AND WORK OF CHRIS ARGYRIS
Chris Argyris was a descendant of Greek Immigrant parents to the United States. He
was born in Newark, New Jersey on July 16, 1923. He was a student of Psychology and
Economics at the University of Clark and Kansas. He wrote his doctoral thesis on
Organizational Behaviour from Cornell University in 1951 under the supervision of Prof.
William E. Whyte who belonged to the Chicago School of Sociology. He served as faculty of
Yale University (1951-1971) and Harvard (1971-2003). He began his academic career as a
behavioural psychologist, continued his research as an organizational theorist and
management thinker. He studied organization keeping in mind the social psychology of
individuals.
His passionate interest in organizational problems and organizational management is

reflected in his voluminous writings. He wrote about 40 books and over 350 research papers.
As a renowned management thinker of his times, Argyris received numerous prestigious
awards including honorary degrees from many western universities. He questioned the ‘good
management practices’ of the 20th century and the systematic theory of classical
administrative theorists. Yale University conferred on him honourary doctorate in 2011 and
in honour of his contributions to organizational development the University established the
Chris Argyris Chair in Social Psychology of Organizations. The major works for which
Argyris will be remembered forever are:
 Personality and Organization (1957)

 Understanding Organizational Behaviour(1960)
 Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Behaviour(1964)
 Integrating the individual and the Organization(1965)
 Management and Organizational Development(1971)
 Increasing Leadership Effectiveness(1976)
 Knowledge for Action: A Guide to overcoming barriers to Organizational
Change(1993)
Argyris viewed organizations as open systems that interact with the environment. He
strongly believed that organizations depend on people for achieving their goals, but in most
cases, these organizations themselves stand in the way of realizing the potential of
individuals. His main aim was to identify the counter-productive consequences of classical
management techniques in formal organizations. Argyris was convinced that the primary
task of the organizations is to ensure employees’ motivations and facilitate the fulfillment of
their potential. He brought a paradigm shift in administrative thought by working for
organizational change and organizational development through intervention strategies .
Argyris considered the social scientist as a researcher and an actor or interventionist.
103
MPA-102/OSOU
Believing strongly in the idea of a ‘learning organization’ Argyris and David Schon trained a
large number of teachers, managers, and consultants.
Argyris has acknowledged the influence of Kurt Lewin, the American Social
Psychologist on his research. He believed in the three-step model of change management, the
action research approach and the group dynamics given by Lewin. The second influence was
that of William F. Whyte, the author of Street Corner Society. Whyte’s commitment to
observational data and interest in change impressed Argyris. Argyris was highly influenced
by Donald Schon and began working with him to develop the idea of a ‘learning
organization’.
8.3 ARGYRIS’ VIEWS ON HUMAN PERSONALITY
The administrative thought of Chris Argyris was based on his idea of human
personality and the impact of formal organizations on individuals working in the
organization. Therefore, it is important to discuss his views on human nature.
Argyris felt that growth is a natural and healthy experience for people. He proposes
that all individuals progress from a very immature, dependent personality to a mature,
independent one. Argyris in his magnum opus work Personality and Organization (1957)
views the growth process in 7 stages that transform immature infants into mature adults.
1. Individuals are transformed from a passive stage to a state of activity, becoming more
active.
2. Individuals seek interdependence with others and develop into an independent state.
3. In the immature state, individuals behave within limited behaviour patterns but when
they become mature, they behave in diverse ways exhibiting unlimited behaviour
patterns.
4. Individuals develop deep interests when they mature as against shallow interests at the
immature stage.
5. Individuals move from a short-time perspective to a long-time perspective with
growing maturity.
6. As individuals mature they have increasing needs to be more active and desire to
move from subordinate positions to superordinate ones.
7. Individuals develop high awareness and self-control in contrast to low self-awareness.
This process has been identified as the immaturity-maturity continuum by Chris
Argyris. Organizations where individuals work may promote or thwart this development
process. Those organizations are more likely to prosper who acknowledged and aided this
growth process.
Each individual possesses a set of needs and needs release energy to get satisfaction.
The deeper the need, the greater will be the amount of energy. An individual is likely to put
all energies into meeting a challenge in case he or she feels assured of potential satisfaction.
Like a child who is dependent and unaware of how his demands affect others, an immature
individual’s activities are controlled by others.
104
MPA-102/OSOU
This Immaturity-Maturity Continuum theory is a major contribution of Argyris to the

behavioural school of thought.
8.4 HIS CRITIQUE OF FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS
We have mentioned earlier that Argyris is critical of the classical theory of

organization that creates a formal hierarchical structure of organization without taking into
account the presence of individuals within it. Its features are task specialization, unity of
command, chain of command, the span of control and managerial control combined with
directive leadership. Such an organization would have adverse consequences for the
personality growth of employees and organizational effectiveness.
Based on his views on individual personality and collating evidence from social
psychology and organizational behavior Argyris formulated his perspectives on existing
organizations. Existing organizations are legal entities having some structures that are
common to all organizations. Argyris hypothesizes that in these organizations, there is an
incongruence between the needs of a mature personality and the requirements of the
organization. Rigid rules and procedures treat them as if they are infants.
Formal organizations develop a directive autocratic leadership to control the

employees. Consequently, the specialists and subunits in the formal organization follow their
own goals irrespective of the interests of the organization and its members. In such a formal
setup the individuals are passive, not creative, and not forward-looking and their concerns are
restricted to their work difficulties. In such situations, management carries a dominant
assumption that employees are lazy, uninterested and apathetic, money-crazy and commit
errors and cause wastage. Management blames the employees for any failure or wastage and
puts pressure on the latter to correct it. Argyris concludes that the impact of directive
leadership ‘compounds the felony’ that the formal organization commits. Such leadership
notes Argyris , caused more damage to the organization.
Argyris formulated certain propositions about the impact of organizations on the
individual.
a) Individuals in formal organizations react to the incongruencies between their

mature needs and requirements by – (1) leaving the job, (2) taking leave without
informing, (3) ignoring the needs of the organization, (4) showing indifference or
lack of interest in the organization, (5) remain dissatisfied in this may result to
problems in the organization.
b) Another result of the impact of rigidities of the organization could be the
development of frustration among the employees. Their desire for fulfilling self-
actualization and self-esteem may not be satisfied. The result of this may be
reflected in less mature behaviour, aggression and conflict.
c) Certain reactions of management may result in a loss of interest in work, loss of
self-confidence, a tendency of putting the blame on others, lower work standards,
a lack of interest to defend and a sense of fear.
105
MPA-102/OSOU
The primary consequence of this is that the worker becomes money-minded to

compensate for the incompatible situation in the organization.
The second consequence of this is that the informal organization is thus born to
weaken conflict between the individual and the organization. The informal organization
serves several purposes. Firstly, it reduces the employee’s feeling of dependence,
subordination and passivity toward management. Secondly, the informal organization enables
the employee to release his or her tensions ranging from hostility to passive internalization of
tensions caused by the organization. Thirdly, the informal organization helps the individual
employee create his or her own culture and values in which the employee finds shelter while
in the process of adjusting and adapting to his work environment.
Argyris feels, by creating the informal world the employee can also take an active role
in influencing the formal organization. Argyris also admits that these informal organizations
within the formal organization may have a negative effect on his or her mental health.
8.5 ARGYRIS’ CRITIQUE OF SIMON’S THEORY OF RATIONAL

MAN IN AN ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
BEHAVIOUR
Herbert Simon’s idea of a rational administrative man has been criticized by Chris
Argyris on a number of grounds. Argyris thinks, Simon’s rational organization ignores the
emotional side of the man and neglects the negative feelings of an employee towards the
goals of the organization. He states that the idea of a ‘satisficing’ man would support the
status quo of the organizations. Simon’s theory excludes variables like interpersonal
competence and self-actualisation needs from organizational behaviour.
8.6 ARGYRIS’ VIEWS ON ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
In a formal organization, Argyris views, there is a tendency to control the life of a

man with a rigid hierarchy. Such strategies for the direction and control of the human
resources of an enterprise are suited to the characteristics of a child rather than an adult.
There is no inherent contradiction between the goals of the organization, organizational well-
being and personal development of individuals. In fact, they complement each other. The
innate potential of every individual or the potential for their self-actualization should be
unlocked for organizational development. He viewed that accepting these self-actualization
needs of employees will eventually benefit the organization.
Therefore, Argyris suggested certain solutions to correct the basic incongruencies

between the needs of a mature individual personality and the demands of the formal
organization designed on classical principles. This discrepancy is the root cause of the
organizational crisis.Along with Edgar Schein and Warren, Bennis Argyris developed the
field of organizational development.
106
MPA-102/OSOU
Argyris has prescribed some intervention strategies in four core areas. He argued in
favour of a total change in the strategies as well as assumptions of the organization. Firstly,
the organization should treat the employee as mature individuals capable of participating in
decision-making. Secondly, the organization should work for developing the interpersonal
competencies of workmen. Thirdly, unlike the traditional organization, his new form of
organization would be a combination of both the old pyramidal type and new matrix type of
organization, as a part of bringing out organizational change. Fourthly, techniques for
programmed learning would introduce changes in individual behavior.
The suggested solutions of Argyris are given below:
A) To enlarge the jobs: Argyris criticizes Taylor’s view ‘one hires a hand rather than a
whole person. As a votary of job enrichment he argues that the jobs of employees should be
enlarged in content and increased in variety. This will generate interest in the employee for
the work and satisfy his or her self-esteem and self-actualization needs.
B) He suggests exploring the interpersonal competencies of individuals. Argyris observed
an absence of interpersonal competence in the existing organizations. Members of working
organizations lack mutual trust among themselves; they find excuses for their acts and stick
to their old ways and resist new ways; they confine themselves to their routine tasks. With a
view to increasing interpersonal competence in employees, the humanist Argyris suggests
developing four specific types of behaviour in them.
 Accepting responsibility for one’s ideas and feelings
 Showing openness to the ideas and feelings of your superiors and subordinates
 Experimenting with personal new ideas
 Helping others to accept, and experiment with other’s ideas
In the context of interpersonal competence, Argyris suggests that top managers must
not be reluctant in sharing their feelings honestly. This approach will reduce conflict and
tension in the organization.
C) Envisioning future organizational structures

According to Argyris organizations of the future will have mixed features of both the
traditional and modern forms with different results.
(i) A Pyramidal Structure - Pyramidal Organizations are having strictly hierarchical

structures and are expected to perform limited routine tasks. These are non-
innovative activities that require little internal commitment.
(ii) An adapted formal organizational structure provides much scope for
subordinate participation with the option for the superior to take his own
decisions. This is a pyramidal organization with workers’ participation in
management.
(iii) Defined but Participative Structure – Under this structure, each employee has
equal opportunity and can have more control over what is done in his sphere of
activities. This is used in situations of new product development or inter-
departmental operations.
107
MPA-102/OSOU
(iv) In Matrix organizations each employee has defined power and responsibilities.
All members function as a cohesive team. The team gets dissolved on the
completion of its functions.
The future organizations have the structure of a formal organization but the style of its
management will be like a matrix. Authority would be based less on power and more on the
possession of expertise and information. This will encourage participative management and
leadership. Precisely speaking, Argyris suggests a mixed organization with different payoffs;
the aim is to match the tasks of employees with organization structures.
D) Programmed Learning :T - Group Training or Sensitivity Training as a technique

Argyris believes that training enables employees to understand themselves and their
situation at work. He lays emphasis on T-group (T for training) or sensitivity training for
improving the personal effectiveness of employees.In contrast to conventional training
programmes, the focus of T-sessions is to create an atmosphere in which participants forget
hierarchical identities and develop distributive leadership and participative management in
decision-making.
The T-Group technique consists of a laboratory programme designed to provide

opportunities for individual employees to expose themselves to new bahaviour, give and
receive feedback, and develop awareness and acceptance of ‘self’ and sensitivity to the
behavior of others. It also provides the possibility to learn the nature of effective group
functioning.
The aim of the sensitivity training was on changing the individual, and not necessarily the
environment in which they work. Argyris believed that the use of the same approach in an
extensive way results in organizational improvement.
Argyris thinks all these above mentioned intervention strategies would link individual
response patterns, personality needs and abilities and release of psychological energy.
8.7 ARGYRIS’ VIEWS ON LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS
The seminal contribution of Argyris and Donald Schon to administrative theory is the
concept of ‘Learning Organization’ .A learning organization is an organization skilled at
creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new
knowledge and insights. This definition begins with a simple truth: new ideas are essential if
learning is to take place.
Argyris viewed organizations as open systems which are enriched by the experience
and actions of individuals working within them. Organizational learning occurs when
employees act as learning agents by responding to the internal and external environments by
identifying and correcting errors in the organization theory-in-use and incorporating them
into their work.
In this context, Argyris and Schon developed single-loop and double-loop learning. In single-
loop learning, employees respond to errors immediately by modifying strategies within the
organizational norms. Single-loop learning can be compared with a thermostat that learns
108
MPA-102/OSOU
when it is too hot or too cold and then turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is able to
perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and
therefore take corrective action.The action is taken without identifying any causality.
In double-loop learning, the response to detected error takes the form of a joint inquiry into
organizational errors per se and resolves the inconsistency and makes new norms that can be
realized effectively.
Central to the work of Argyris and Schon is the concept of a theory of actions.
Theories of actions are the mechanisms by which we link our thoughts with our actions.
Action science conceptualizes human beings as designers of actions. The design of each
programme is not deliberate, but often implicit. Design imparts meanings to individual
behavior and actions result in intended consequences. The main purpose of action science is
to identify, according to Argyris, which actions are produced by which conditions.
The art of management, to Argyris, is managing Knowledge. In other words, the

manager is not managing people, but rather the knowledge they carry. The job of leadership
is to produce valid and validatable knowledge, informed choices and to monitor how one is
doing on both.
Argyris and Schon have given us two models – Model I and Model II in the 1970s.
The salient features of Model I are control of men, suppression of emotions, desire to win
over and being rational and calculative. These strategies compel the leadership to formulate
untested attributions about others and expression of arguments without openness. This
escalates the error.
Argyris gives the alternate model, Model II. This Model assumes that behaviours can be
learned. It helps the actors to learn an alternative cognitive programme. Argyris expects that a
Model II theory –in-use would rely on directly observable data supported by illustrations,
testing and inquiry into others’ views. Argyris thinks that organizations are full of Model I
people and it is essential to change their attributes through programmed learning. Individual
behaviours may vary, but there is hardly any cross-cultural variation in theory-in-use. Model
II rewards openness, trust and truth-seeking.
8.8 A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ARGYRIS’ THOUGHT
Herbert Simon is a great critique of Argyris. He thinks Argyris had developed a great
antipathy to the authority which will affect organizational effectiveness negatively. Simon
feels the need for power corrupts both the powerless and the powerful. Along with Simon
many other critiques of his thought also believe that Argyris’ belief in a benign view of man
and the self-actualization need is incompatible with his ideas of integrating individual goals
with organizational goals. Under all circumstances individuals do not try to satisfy self-
actualization needs ; some of them desire to work under directive leadership. Thus, self-
actualization is not a universalistic goal.
109
MPA-102/OSOU
8.9 CONCLUSION
Chris Argyris is subject to innumerable criticisms when managers began to implement

his concepts, theories and strategies. But, the academic innovations in his thought are quite
visible in his conceptualization of interpersonal competence and relating it to organizational
effectiveness. His greatest contribution to administrative theory is that interpersonal
competence is a skill that can be learned in an organization if we believe that every
organization is a ‘learning organization’. Peter Senge and Argyris popularized the idea of
‘learning organization’. Argyris’ greatest contribution to research in management and Public
Administration is the concept of ‘action research’. He believed in activating the research
finding to examine their validity. He is one of the great management thinkers whose research
brought a paradigm shift in industrial psychology.
8.10 KEY CONCEPTS
1. Double-loop learning: Double-loop learning is an educational concept and process

that involves teaching people to think more deeply about their assumptions and
beliefs. It was created by Chris Argyris, a leading organizational trainer, in the mid-
1980s, and developed over the next decade into an effective tool. Double Loop
Learning is identifying and understanding causality and then taking action to fix the
problem. Causality might be observed but typically is not addressed in single-loop
learning and hence is an ad hoc approach.
2. Felony: A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, Chris
Argyris argued that formal organizations compound felonies. The employees neglect
their own needs and compete with each other in pleasing the leader. Authoritarian
leadership, notes Argyris, reinforces and perpetuates the ‘damage’ created by the
organisational structure and compounds the ‘felony’.
3. Learning Organization: A learning organization is an organization skilled at
creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to
reflect new knowledge and insights. This definition begins with a simple truth: new
ideas are essential if learning is to take place.
4. Matrix Organization: A matrix organisation is a structure in which there is more
than one line of reporting managers. Effectively, it means that the employees of the
organisation have more than one boss!
5. Participative Structure: In organizations with participative structures each employee
has an equal opportunity to participate in inter-departmental operations and can have
more control over what is done in his sphere of activities.
6. Programmed learning: Programmed learning is a research-based system that focuses
on the exposure of employees in teams, organizational diagnosis, renewal and
effectiveness. It helps learners work successfully. Chris Argyris evolved a type of
programmed learning as T-group sensitivity training.
110
MPA-102/OSOU
7. Single-loop learning: Single-loop learning is the process of evaluating successes and

failures to produce different outcomes in the future. Employees respond to errors
within organizational norms.
8.11 ACTIVITIES
1) Discuss Chris Argyris’ views on the structure of future organizations.

2) Give a brief note on Chris Argyris’ propositions about the influence of formal
organizations on individual personality.
3) Elaborate on the different strategies given by Chris Argyris to introduce organizational
development.
8.12 REFERENCES
 Ali Shuma Sun Nisa, (1998), Eminent Administrative Thinkers, Associated

Publishing House, New Delhi
 Argyris Chris, (1957), Personality and Organization, Harper and Row, New York
 Argyris Chris, (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Addison-
Wesley, New York
 Prasad, D. Ravindra, V.S. Prasad and P. Satyanarayan (2000) Administrative
Thinkers(Ed), Sterling Publishers, New Delhi
 Prasad, L.M., (2004), Organizational Behaviour, Sultan Chand & Sons, New Delhi
111
Block-3
Modern Thinkers
Unit-9: A.H. Maslow
Unit-10: Frederick Herzberg
Unit-11: D. McGregor
Unit-12: Herbert Simon

MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-9: ABRAHAM HAROLD MASLOW
Structure:
9.1 Introduction
9.2Life and works of Abraham H. Maslow
9.3Contribution of Abraham H. Maslow
9.3.1 Motivation Theory: Hierarchy Needs
9.3.2 Theory-Z Organization
9.4 Conclusion
9.5 Activities
This unit will help out in understanding the concept given by Abraham Maslow’s
Motivation theory by analysing the needs hierarchy the concept like Eupsychian Management
and how Theory-Z organisation will give an idea associated with the better performance of
the Employee in an organisation. Along with the ideas given by Maslow a critical analysis
will help the learner to look into the loop holes generated in the theory and carry out further
research. These theories will help one understand a person’s his/her worth in a society.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the most important proponents of the humanistic approach is Abraham H. Maslow.
The need hierarchy was proposed by Abraham Maslow which was a
part of his theory of human motivation during the 1940’s. His greater
interest in understanding the human behaviour resulted in him
choosing a psychologist as a career in his earlier part of his career. The
method he used to understand the human behaviour was through the
psychoanalysis. During his practice as a psychologist he could classify the five level of need
hierarchy. Maslow began writing a book in the 1930s based on his findings, and it was
"planned to be a systematic psychology of the older type. “He has inspired many people from
112
MPA-102/OSOU
the profession unlike clinical and personality psychologists through his writings which were
published during 40’s and 50’s in periodic intervals. His ideas geared up when McGregor
popularised his ideas and this attracted Managers along with the administrators.
9.2 LIFE AND WORKS OF ABRAHAM MASLOW
Abraham Harold Maslow was born on April 1, 1908, in Brooklyn, New York. He was
born to a Jewish family who emigrated from Russia. He was an American sociologist. He is
well known for his conceptual development of the ‘hierarchy of human needs’ which
explains Human Motivation. He is popularly known as the father of Humanistic
Psychology.
About his career -At City College in New York, Maslow had previously studied law. Later,
he transferred to the University of Wisconsin to study psychology and conduct original
research on the sexuality and dominance behaviour of primates. All from the University of
Wisconsin, he earned his BA in 1930, MA in 1931, and Ph.D. in 1934. Later, he relocated to
Columbia University, where he carried on his psychological research. Maslow served as a
professor at Brooklyn College from 1937 to 1951, served as the department chair and
professor of psychology at Brandies University from 1951 to 1969, and then was named a
Roosevelt Fellow at the Laughlin Institute in California.
He describes his life which has faced a lot of hardships and so he made the books as his
friends and has spent a lot of time in engaging with the books. He wrote a great deal about the
third force, or the psychology that arose in the 1950s and 1960s.In 1954, he collected his
earlier works and published his best-selling book Motivation and Personality. He later
produced a number of books and articles.
Some of his works are mentioned below -

Popular Book was Motivational and Personality in 1954
His other works -

 A Theory of Human Motivation (1943),
 Religion, Values and Peak Experiences (1965),
 Eupsychian Management (1965),
 The Psychology of Science (1966),
 Towards Psychology of Being (1971).
113
MPA-102/OSOU
The conscious and unconscious aims of people are reflected in their behaviour. It can be
deduced from their behaviour and the reasons for it. Since Sigmund Freud's time, people have
been accustomed to these theories about human motivation. A new direction in social
psychology is to examine human behaviour through the lens of human wants and
motivations. In organisational research, Maslow's contribution to the motivation theory—in
the form of his need hierarchy—is notable among the many others. It offers the structure
for examining and analysing human motivation. The motivations are but one class of
determinants of behaviour because Maslow's theory and behaviour theory are not
interchangeable. While motivation is usually always a factor in behaviour, biological,
cultural, and environmental factors are virtually always present as well.
By viewing human needs as the cornerstone of human behaviour, Maslow's understanding of
human motivation is a plain and straightforward addition to the field of motivation theory.
Maslow believed that the majority of motivation theories only addressed physiological
requirements while ignoring other significant needs associated with personal development.
These elements were covered by his theory.
Motivation according to Maslow:

 Human beings derives into action to fulfill its needs
 Motivation depends upon the goals of human beings
 A satisfied need gives birth to the satisfied need
 This process goes in continuum because human is a wanting animal
 The term ‘motivation’ is derived from the Latin word ’movere’ meaning to move
There are two categories of motivation theories which are explained below:
1) Content Theory ;( What is needed by the person could be categoried in this

part).
 Concerned with identifying the needs that people have
 How these needs are prioritized
2) Process theory:(How the needs are to be fulfilled using the tips and tricks or any
logic may be required)
 Based on some logic to be motivated
 Concerned with the way they are related to one another
114
MPA-102/OSOU
9.3 CONTRIBUTION OF ABRAHAM MASLOW
9.3.1 MOTIVATION THEORY: MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
In his classic paper “A Theory of Human Motivation”, 1943, the hierarchy needs is
explained. He has successfully provided us the first systematic conceptual model of human
motivation. He has pointed out that the Human needs influences human behavior. The
technique psycho-analysis was used by him to study human behaviour. This need hierarchy
consists of five levels, the five levels are explained below with examples.
Stage-1: Physiological needs: This focuses on basic needs such as Hunger, thirst, sleeps etc.
Stage-2: Security needs: Protection against natural calamities, threat and danger
Stage-3: Social needs: Belongingness to group, family, friends etc.
Stage-4: Esteem needs: Ego needs, achievement (Confidence, Independence), recognition
(Status, Appreciation).
Stage-5:Self-actualisation needs: Realisation of one’s potential, creativity. The term self-
actualisation was first coined by Kurt Goldstein
Types of needs are categorized in orders as below:

The needs are further categorized into two needs lower order needs and higher order needs
Lower order needs: Physiological security and social needs
Higher order needs: Esteem and self-actualization needs.
Source: Internet
115
MPA-102/OSOU
“Human Motivation” is familiar since the day of Sigmund Freud. Maslow threw a light on
looking at the perspective such as by analysing the human behaviour through human needs
and motives in social psychology.
He believed that Human actions are the outcomes of several unfulfilled needs and motives.
He have focused on the physiological needs and omitted other need relating to personal
growth. He addressed these aspects in his theory.
Need Hierarchy:
a) The Physiological Needs:
The needs which are covered under this are the biological ones needed by human beings such
as hunger, thirst, food, shelter, etc. These needs are the very basic for each and every human
being until this is satisfied he would not be able to focus onto the next need according to the
Maslow’s need Hierarchy. A person who is starving for the food for him the utopia would be
the world of food and the mind and the body would be relaxed only if the person could get
the food to eat. The person those who are deprived of the basic needs, for them the
motivating forces are seen in Physiological needs. For such person freedom, love, community
life, etc are not the priorities; they are the secondary ones. The person those who are not
struggling to get the food for them and they could easily avail it, it is just the need for the
appetite purpose, which is the physiological need. As and when the Physicological need is
satisfied, the human looks for the social needs.
b) The Security Needs

The humans are very much conscious of this need as this is associated with the security and
safety from natural catastrophe, dangers and deprivations. The humans are the one who
always seek for the safer side where they are not to be pointed out for any deeds neither they
are ready to face the challenges. This need covers the safety, security, stability, and
protection, the person those who have overcome from the Physiological needs. For the people
who are striving for the safety needs priorities it than other needs. The infants’ safety could
set a better example for this stage which is associated with the nourishment of the child to
taking care of the child in every aspect of his/her life as a parent and also the relatives of the
child. Whereas this could also be seen in the orderly, peaceful and civilised society, the safety
and security is taken care of, to a great extent, by the government. In societies where safety
need is taken care of, to a great extent, by the government. In such societies the security
needs are not the motivating factors anymore.
116
MPA-102/OSOU
But, if we look at the other expressions of safety needs in people’s preferences related to a
job, savings, insurance etc. Unlike in India the society considers if a baby boy is born then
their parents’ old-age would not suffer from any hardships.
c) The Belongingness and Love Needs

Human being is described as a social animal. The belongingness and love needs are next to
the Security needs. The person is always in search of love, affection and belongingness from
other human beings and the society around. The person those who feel the need of
belongingness, love and affection and attention from their family and friends are seem to be
in this stage of need hierarchy. We could see people those who are attention seekers they
must have a very hard childhood which have made them to crave for such feelings. These
desires motivate their behaviour consciously and consciously. As, the actions reflect the
unfulfilled desires and needs. There is another thing that is to be noted that the love is not to
be confused here with sex as it comes under physiological needs.
d) The Esteem Needs

The needs which are covered under this stage are a desire to be recognised and respected by
the others (society, colleagues, family and friends).Self-respect and self-esteem are the two
major categories which are craved by the people who belong to this group. People at this
stage are much considered as self-centered as they are very particular about their own norms
and beliefs. Self-esteem may be broadly classified into two categories:
Achievement needs-are further expressed in the form desire to be with self-confidence, desire
to possess strength and assertiveness and a desire to be free from depending on others.
Recognition needs- are expressed in the form of aspiring respect from others, recognition in
society, attracting attention and the desire to become an important person.
The fulfillment of this need would be advantageous for the person as this would help in
developing the self-confidence in a person and enhancement the personality of the person
could be seen here. If not fulfilled then the person would be haunted by the feelings such as
inferior, weak and helpless this would demoralize any individual and the person may fail to
create his identity in the society.
These needs are also known as deficit needs or ‘D’ needs. Deficiency motivation occurs
when we lack something and try to meet that deficiency. If one doesn’t have enough of
something I.e., there is deficit, then one feels the need. If the all the needs are fulfilled they
cease to be motivating. Maslow also talks about these levels in terms of ‘homeostatis’- a
117
MPA-102/OSOU
principle on which furnace thermostats works. The mechanism here works as the response to
stimuli which means it would adjust according to the environmental situations. Maslow
illustrated this principle with the human needs. This theory has been given binomial one of
which is ‘survival needs’ as the needs are inherited genetically as instinct and he has given a
term instinctoid- instinct like needs.
e) The Self-Actualisation Needs

Though the term Self-Actualisation was coined by ‘Kurt Goldstein’ .This need is placed at
the highest order in the pyramid of the need of hierarchy. This need indicates that a person
would search the meaning and purpose in life. Even after achieving the needs as mentioned in
the bottom levels of the hierarchy, a person would still try his/her best to excel in the grounds
which are dearer to them. This urge is a reflection of this need for self-fulfillment,
actualization, and leading a meaningful life, this need doesn’t require any creativity .This
need may vary from person to person as a person may desire to get a job in his dream
company and the other may be desiring to get himself involved in the family affairs and to
take care of the children and so on. This is considered to be the need which grow stronger
from time to time not like homeostatis.
Binomial given to this need by Maslow are growth motivation in contrast to deficit
motivation, being needs or ‘B’ needs in contrast to deficit need ’D’ needs and self-
actualisation. Only few people practice self actualisation, which is about two percent of the
population. According to Maslow Self-actualisation means “a musician must make musician
artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a
man can be, he must be. This need we may call actualisation.”
In order to get the clear concept Maslow developed a list of qualities by observing closely the
writing, works, etc. of famous people like Abraham Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi,
Thoma Jeferson, Albert Einstein,etc.,As a result he found several similarities in their lives
and gave a name to the features as ‘self-actualising tendency’. The features of self-actualizer
are discussed below:
 Reality Centered- they could distinguish between the real and fake, genuine and
dishonest
 Problem Centered- to look at a problem and come up with a solution to the problem
 Need privacy- Comfortable being alone
118
MPA-102/OSOU
 Are independent of culture and environment -They believe in their own judgment and
experience.
 Resist enculturalism -not susceptible to social pressures; in away non-conformists;
 Have democratic values-open to ethnic and individual variety;
 Have hostile sense of humour-prefer jokes at their own expense
 Have freshness of appreciation-have ability to see even ordinary things with wonder;
 Have spontaneity and simplicity-prefer to be themselves than being pretentious
 Have a quality called Gemeinschaftsgefuhl (social interest compassion and humanity),
 Freshness of appreciation and ability to be creative.
According to Maslow the self actualisers are not perfect as they suffer from anxiety and
guilt, absentmindedness and have unexpected moments of ruthlessness. The emergence of
this need depends on the fulfillment of all other lower order needs. However, in any society,
satisfied people will always be very few ad as such how many people have this need for self-
actualisation is a question for further research. Despite this fact, we have examples of people
who have reached heights of excellence in different fields in life. Maslow felt that this need is
a challenging problem in research. Self-actualisation is presumably the highest desire of any
normal individual. Who is a self-actualised person? What features characterise such a person?
Maslow undertook several studies to get answer to these questions and based on these studies
provides an exhaustive list characteristics of a self-actualised person.
According to Maslow, the self actualizers are not flawless because they experience
worry and remorse, are forgetful, and occasionally act ruthlessly. The satisfaction of all other
lower order needs is a prerequisite for the creation of this demand. However, there will never
be many satisfied people in any society, and as a result, it is unclear how many people have
this drive for self-actualization. Despite this, there are people who have excelled to great
heights in a variety of spheres of life. Maslow believed that this desire presents a difficult
research problem. Probably the highest aspiration of any normal person is self-actualization.
What does a self-actualized person look like? What traits best describe someone like that?In
order to find the answers to these questions, Maslow conducted a number of investigations.
Based on these studies, he has compiled a comprehensive list of traits that characterise a self-
actualized individual. They:
 Lack overriding guilt, crippling shame and anxiety
119
MPA-102/OSOU
 Like solitude and privacy and at same time retain their dignity even in undignified
surrounding and situations like autonomy and freedom to pursue their endeavors in
life and work
 Derive ecstasy, inspiration and strength from basic experience of life
 Have mystic experience and a deep feeling of identification, sympathy and affection
for mankind;
 Maintain interpersonal relations with a few people;
 Democratic and they can differentiate between ends and means and right and wrong;
and
 Have a sense of humour and possess creativeness and originality
 A self-actualised person possess an unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake,
and the dishonest and in general, to judge people correctly and efficiently.
How a self-actualisation Person is motivated?
He claims that it is easier to forecast the behaviour of an individual when one climbs
down the hierarchy ladder. One might be able to predict what a self-actualized person will do
if their lower order wants are met and their behaviour is exclusively driven by their need for
self-actualization, but this prediction is not achievable based on motivation theory. Even the
existence of motivation in self-actualized individuals is debatable. As Maslow emphasised
that “they work, they try and they are ambitious even though in an unusual sense. For them,
motivation is just character growth, character expression, motivation, and development is a
word self-actualisation.”According to Maslow, truth, goodness, uniqueness, perfection,
justice, self-sufficiency, meaningfulness, etc. are the special and driving needs of the self-
actualiser and if they are not gratified they indulge themselves into the phases which affect
their mental health causing depression, despair, disgust, alienation and cynicism as they
reciprocate to metapathologies (the state of nebulous frustration or displeasure that people go
through when their metaneeds go unmet e.g., specific creative, intellectual, or aesthetic
needs).
The Basic Needs: Additional Features following a thorough discussion of human needs and
their hierarchy, Maslow goes over some of these needs' features discussed below:
There may be deviation as this cannot be considered as the rigid one to follow unlike
for some people self-esteem is very much dearest as compared to the social needs. As there is
a belief that a self-confident person would attract people who will love and show affection
towards such a personality. The people those who lack love and affection try to earn it by
120
MPA-102/OSOU
being brave towards the situation. Some individuals could have very low aspirations. They
become content with very low levels of need satisfaction, and their less powerful objectives
may vanish completely. For instance, psychopathic people experience a lifelong lack of low
requirements. Long-term satisfaction of a need causes it to lose its ability to have an impact
on a person. People who have never felt hunger view food as fundamental and significant.
Once again, a person may temporarily skip satisfying a lower order need in order to satisfy a
higher order need, and vice versa. The needs hierarchy does not consist of airtight containers.
A relative phrase, satisfaction. The emergence of a specific demand following the satisfying
of a lower order need is a gradual event. Need sectors are typically unconscious rather than
conscious in the normal human.
Even if people belonging to a different country and culture, basic needs and desires
are similar for everyone. Human behaviour is multi-motivated, therefore one factor, such as a
need, cannot fully explain it. The fundamental needs cannot dictate all behaviours.
And finally, a satisfied need is not a motivator.
Peak Experience is a concept which was proposed by Maslow. The phrase is an

example of Maslow's attempt to normalise experiences that were typically associated with
religious experiences. Peak experiences, according to him, are exciting times in life that are
marked by emotions like enjoyment and well-being as well as a sense of transcendental
knowledge of a greater reality. He characterises them as a state of witnessing or cognitive
blissfulness, the attainment of which necessitates a great deal of self-actualization. These
experiences are achieved when a person is indulged in meditation, exposure to art, music and
nature.How the this experience would help one to uplift his/her confidence According to
Maslow, peak experiences are typically uplifting, unleash creative forces, create a sense of
purpose and unity, and leave a lasting impression on the person. Peak experiences can be
restorative, boosting a person's imagination, willpower, and empathy. According to Maslow,
the highest peak is when the mind perceives unlimited horizons, when it feels both more
powerful and helpless than ever before, when it experiences enormous joy, wonder, and
amazement, and when it loses its sense of place and time. All people, according to Maslow,
are capable of experiencing a peak moment and will do so multiple times throughout their
lives. Maslow contends that these experiences should be researched and fostered because the
"non-peakers" fight against and suppress them. He believed that the ability to intentionally
produce peak experiences is a trait of the self-actualized, and that it is a state of cognitive
blissfulness, the attainment of which necessitates self-actualization.
121
MPA-102/OSOU
Eupsychian Management
According to Maslow ‘Eupsycian Managemnet’ means, the organisation should be structured
as such that it should meet the safety, love and self-actualisation needs. The employee will
feel happy when all his needs are fullfilled. In any organisation just to know if the employee
are happy or satisfied with the organisation environment ,it’s rules and norms those are
followed is by looking at the complaints given by the Employees.
9.3.2 THEORY-Z ORGANIZATION
According to Maslow Theory-Z organisation or Organization-transcending is

considered as the highest tier of an organization. The Autocratic, custodial, supportive and
collegial forms of organisation given by Keith Davis (Maslow, 1971, pp.284-286). The
theory originated from the concept of committing to being rather than becoming. His
emphasis more upon the level of consciousness, as he considers it as an end in itself.
Every employee is committed to their work. The Management is considered to be the mentor
who would guide and not only give orders to the employees. In response to the management’s
positive approach, the employee should reciprocate love and admiration for the management.
The employees are highly motivated and committed to their profession and meta-needs are
achieved. Maslow's eupsychian basically views man as a goal in himself.
However, since it cannot be implemented, opponents expressed severe concerns about
the viability of Maslow's Theory-Z organisation governed by eupsychian management and
populated by self-actualizing individuals.
Evaluation
The methodology which was selected by Maslow was very much criticised as it was
believed that he has not taken a bigger sample in order to conclude the statement made by
him and hence it is believed that his study has not used a sound Methodology which could be
used and arrive into certain conclusion that the person is a self-actualiser.
Dunham indicated that the theory has never been tested sufficiently because of
numerous methodological reasons even if an enormous lot of research was done. His
research's sophistication, validity, and hierarchy of needs are all called into question. Some
have criticised the idea that needs from a lower order to a higher degree do not always
manifest them in the same order. Although appealing, his idea of self-actualization is
criticised for being overly wide, vague, and imprecise. Maslow's theory has also been
criticised for its lack of sophistication and validity of research data, disagreement over the
122
MPA-102/OSOU
hierarchy of wants, and too-general and imprecise character of the word "self-actualization."
Numerous studies on need hierarchy and job motivation have conflicting findings.
Research by Wabha and Birdwell refutes Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory. They
come to the conclusion that there are just two basic clusters of needs, as opposed to Maslow's
suggestion of five after reviewing a number of earlier studies. They found no support for ‘the
contention that satisfaction of one level of need will be positively associated with the
activation of the next higher level of needs’.
Bass and Barrett believed that Maslow's idea was more intriguing and well-liked than
it actually was.
Wabha and Birdwell also noted that “there is no clear evidence that human needs are
classified in five distinct categories, or that these categories are structured in a special
hierarchy. There is some evidence for the existence of possibly two types of needs, deficiency
and growth needs, although this categorisation is not always operative.”They stated that there
has been little success in proving Maslow's hierarchy. There is also little evidence to support
the idea that our propensity to act to meet needs increases with their intensity.
Vagueness, philosophical connotation and a very generic meaning of the term self-
actualisation is another criticism. Cofer and Appley pointed out that the emphasis on self-
actualization suffers from its ideas' fuzziness, language's looseness, and the inadequateness of
the evidence related to its main claims. Criticism is also levelled at Maslow's stated traits of
self-actualizing individuals. Unfortunately, Maslow doesn't provide much information
regarding the process he used to pick the instances for his research. He also included a
number of internally overlapping characteristics in his list..
Maslow's theory, in the opinion of Michael Nash, is fascinating but incorrect. He

labeled Herzberg and Maslow's beliefs as "Major Wrong Theories." Maslow's theory is more
than just an inside/outside analysis of the nature of labour, in his opinion. Maslow had a wise
thought. His progression of demands from the physiological lower order wants to the higher
order needs makes sense (self-actualisation). The needs are legitimate on the surface and
make sense. We are aware of our own physical requirements, as well as the urge to be with
other people and the need to feel as though we are using all of our potential. Everyone has
these requirements to some extent at some point.
123
MPA-102/OSOU
Maslow's need hierarchy has a flaw in that managers trying to increase employee
productivity cannot use it as a practical guidance. Maslow has also come under fire for
omitting environmental aspects that can help or hinder self-actualization, such as education
and social support. His philosophy is individualist and is incompatible with collectivist
concepts like cooperation and group action. One of the forerunners and a role model in the
effort to create personality theories was Maslow. He launched a fourth psychological force.
Toward the conclusion of his life, he gave the human potential movement and humanistic
psychology more of his time and attention. Maslow made a significant contribution to social
psychology study, and he was a pioneer for many others, including Herzberg and Vroom.
Maslow's hypothesis is widely acknowledged and has had a significant influence on
contemporary management approaches to motivation. Despite criticism, he made a significant
contribution to motivation theory, and his theories inspired additional research in the field.
His approach is more thorough and places an emphasis on esteem and self-actualization, two
previously disregarded human ideals. Unlike Freud, who placed more emphasis on negative
experiences, he emphasised happy events. According to Dunham, his theory is helpful for
determining the needs of employees, appropriate sorts of rewards, and possibilities to
increase organisational effectiveness. Maslow said that his unique hierarchy served as a good
generalisation of all humans. He never meant to imply that everyone's requirements would be
arranged in a similar hierarchical structure.
Maslow himself noted that, “We have spoken so far as if this hierarchy was a fixed
order, but actually it is not nearly as rigid as we may have implied. It is true that most of the
people with whom we have worked have seemed to have these basic needs in about the order
that has been indicated. However, there have been a number of exceptions…. There are other
apparently innately creative people in whom the drive to creativeness might appear not as
self-actualisation released by basic satisfaction, but in spite of lack of basic satisfaction.”
9.4 CONCLUSION
 Using human wants and motives to analyse behaviour is a novel approach in social
psychology. Abraham Maslow, an American sociologist and the father of humanistic
psychology, is one of many individuals who have made significant contributions to the
field of motivation theory. He is best known for his conceptualization of the hierarchy of
human needs and for having created a framework for the study and analysis of human
motivation.
124
MPA-102/OSOU
 Maslow created a hierarchy of human needs. Physiological and security requirements are
at the bottom of the hierarchy of wants, while self-actualization is at the top. Social and
self-esteem needs fall into the intermediate category and are referred to as middle order
needs. The satisfaction of lower order needs is a requirement for the emergence of higher
order needs. Maslow refers to self-actualization as a need and lower order and middle
order demands as deficit needs or "D" needs.
 The desire for self-fulfillment, actualization, and leading a meaningful life is known as
self-actualization, which is the higher order human need. Depending on the individual,
this urge may take on several forms. It is a desire to excel in areas that are more
important to them. Maslow created a list of characteristics of selfactualizers based on
biographical research of well-known personalities.
 Maslow posed the topic of what characteristics characterise a self-actualized individual
and conducted numerous studies to address this issue. Based on these investigations, he
came up with a comprehensive list of traits that self-actualized people should possess.
 Maslow discusses the unique motivational requirements of self-actualizers since he is
aware of the complexity of the process. They consist of things like justice, goodness,
truth, originality, and truthfulness. Self-actualizers develop metapathologies when their
wants are not realised.
 Maslow talks about the special motivational needs of self-actualizers because he is aware
of how difficult the process is. Justice, goodness, truth, originality, and honesty are
among their components. Metapathologies are created by self-actualizers when their
desires are not satisfied.
 Methodological issues and the ambiguity of terms like self-actualization were raised in
opposition to Maslow's theory of need hierarchy. Despite opposition, he is a pioneer in
the field of social psychology, and despite its flaws, his theory of the hierarchy of needs
has had a profound influence on how modern managers view motivation.
Maslow's theories remain highly relevant because, in the current climate of intense
international rivalry, there is no management issue more vital than inspiring employees to
increase their efficiency and production. Considered to be Maslow's most original and
enduring contribution to social sciences, particularly administrative theory, is his theory of
motivation (Need Hierarchy). Maslow, a pioneer of the humanistic approach, rejected the old
notions of negative motivation and adopted a comprehensive and optimistic perspective on
125
MPA-102/OSOU
human nature and motivation. Ideally, Theory-Z a healthy society can be achieved through
organisations that use eupsychian management techniques and promote self-actualization.
9.5 ACTIVITIES:
1. Explain Theory Z organisation.

2. Write a short note on need Hierarchy.
3. From the lens of Maslow Explain Self Actualisation needs.
 Maslow, A. H., “A Dynamic Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review,

Vol. 50,1943, pp. 370-396.
 Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper & Row, 1954, p. IX.
Ibid.
 Maslow, A. H., “A Theory of Human Motivation”, in Huneryager, S. G., and
Heckmann, I. L., Human Relations in Management, Bombay, Taraporevala & Co.,
1972, p. 334.
 See Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality, op. cit., Ch.5. Ibid., Ch. 12. Ibid. p.
211.
 Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality, op. cit., pp. 98-106.
 Prasad & Prasad, (ed) Administrative Thinkers, Delhi, Sterling Enlarged, Edition
2010, pp.141-149.
126
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-10: FREDRICK HERZBERG
Structure:
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Life, Education, and Contributions
10.3 Research on Motivation in the Organisation
10.4 Motivation-Hygiene Theory
10.5 Job Enrichment
10.6 Job Loading
10.7 Comparison between Maslow And Herzberg
10.8 Critical analysis of Herzberg's theory
10.9 Conclusion
10.10 Key Concepts
10.11 References and Further Reading
10.12 Activities
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

 What are motivations theories like?
 Describe Herzberg's theory of hygiene and motivation.
 Describe the meaning of the terms job loading and job enrichment.
 Analyze Herzberg's theory of motivation
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and Frederick Herzberg were key contributors
to the socio-psychological approach. These thinkers have concentrated on the multifaceted
aspect of Human Motivation in Organizations. After reading the writings of Abraham
Maslow, McGregor, and Aygris, Herzberg developed an interest in examining the connection
between meaningful work experience and mental health. His studies on two hundred and
three accountants and engineers resulted in the motivation-hygiene theory. The motivation-
hygiene Theory hypothesis by Herzberg is the belief about the motivation of employees. This
motivation-hygiene Theory hypothesis assumes on the one side, that employees will be
dissatisfied with their jobs; this frequently has to do with so-called hygiene factors, such as
pay, and employment circumstances, and on the other side job satisfaction as measured by
achievement, recognition, and advancement.
10.2 LIFE, EDUCATION, AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Frederick Irving Herzberg was born on April 18, 1923, in Lynn, Massachusetts,
United States. In 1939, he enrolled at City College of New York. He did not complete his
127
MPA-102/OSOU
studies because he enlisted in the army. In 1946, finally he completed his studies and
graduated from City College of New York. He then joined the University of Pittsburgh to
pursue his master's degree in science and public health at Pittsburgh; he earned a Ph.D.
degree in electric shock therapy from the University of Pittsburgh. Frederick Herzberg has
worked for Psychological Services of Pittsburgh as a research director. At the same time that
he started working as a psychology professor at Case Western Reserve University, he also
started to concentrate his research on the workplace. At this time, he founded the Department
of Industrial Mental Health. Later, he joined the University of Utah faculty as a professor of
management. In 1959, he put forth his Two Factor Theory. It is based on Maslow's Hierarchy
of Requirements and asserts that motivation is caused by the arrangement of human needs
into a hierarchy of levels in descending order of priority. Frederick Herzberg's theory was
first published in 1959 in his book "The Motivation to Work."Other contributions are Work
and the Nature of Man (1966), The Managerial Choice, and Herzberg on Motivation
(1983). His 1968 Harvard Business Review essay "One More Time, How Do You Motivate
Employees?" looks to have sold over 1.2 million copies in less than 20 years.
10.3 RESEARCH ON MOTIVATION IN THE ORGANISATION
The importance of motivation has been well recognized in the modern era and has
become an integral part of managerial practice. People join organizations with a goal in mind,
and once that goal, in the form of satisfaction, is met, man's interest in work gradually fades.
As a result, production suffers. Frederick Herzberg proposed a satisfaction-based theory of
employee motivation in the 1950s. Managers had been wondering for several years why their
fancy personnel policies and fringe benefits were not increasing employees’ motivation on
the job. To address this, Frederick developed a specific content theory of work motivation
that was an interesting extension of Maslow's need hierarchy theory. It is also known as the
Two Factor Theory or the Motivational-Hygiene Theory. He gathered data using the ‘critical
incidents’ method. Herzberg and his colleagues conducted in-depth interviews with 200
engineers and accountants from eleven different firms in the United States of America.,
asking them straightforward questions, “think of a time when you felt exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad about your job, either your current job or a previous job you've had.” This
approach has been used numerous times with a wide range of jobholders in various countries.
The findings revealed that when people discussed feeling good or satisfied with their jobs,
they mentioned features intrinsic to the job, whereas when they discussed feeling dissatisfied
with their jobs, they mentioned factors extrinsic to the job. These are what Herzberg referred
to as motivation and hygiene factors, respectively.
Herzberg's research relied on open questioning and few assumptions to collect and
analyze information from 'critical incidents' as respondents. He first adopted this mythology
during his doctoral studies at the University of Pittsburgh. This open interview method
produced far more meaningful results than the most popular, convenient, and traditional
closed or multi-choice extend-best questions, which assume or prompt a specific type of
response. With the level of preparation and the critical incident method and in-depth analysis
after the study, Herzberg created an influential and sophisticated work. In his subsequent
128
MPA-102/OSOU
books, Herzberg expanded on his motivation-hygiene theory. Notably, twenty-five years after
the publication of his theory, Herzberg stated that the "original study has produced more
replications than any other research in the history of industrial and organizational
psychology."
Before Herzberg's research, management, in general, focused on improving hygiene

factors, that is, whenever there was a problem, they attempted to solve it by raising salaries,
providing additional fringe benefits, and improving working conditions. However, these
simple solutions do not always succeed in motivating employees. Apart from explaining
motivational problems, Herzberg's theory encouraged managers to take a closer look at all
motivational factors rather than focusing solely on hygiene factors.
10.4 MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY
Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory identified five strong factors of job

satisfaction and five factors of job dissatisfaction, which are completely different sets of
factors. These factors are given below table.
Source: https://tyonote.com/herzberg_two_factor_theory
Hygiene Factors;When Hygiene Factors are absent, job dissatisfaction increases. When
present, they aid in the prevention of dissatisfaction but do not boost satisfaction or
motivation. The requirement to prevent pain at work is represented by hygiene factors. They
are related to the circumstances in which a job is performed but they are not an essential
component of the job. They are linked to unfavorable feelings. They must be seen as
preventive efforts that eliminate sources of unhappiness from the workplace because they are
environmental hygiene factors. For example; maintaining hygiene in the working conditions
does not promote growth but serves to prevent deterioration. Maintaining a clean work
environment, like garbage disposal or water purification, will not increase motivation.
Hygiene factors do not increase workers’ productivity but they prevent performance loss
caused by work restrictions. Herzberg believed that hygiene factors create a zero level of
129
MPA-102/OSOU
motivation and, when maintained at the appropriate level, prevent only the negative type of
motivation from occurring. According to Scott Myers, “maintenance factors are characterized
by the fact that they inspire little positive sentiment when added, but incite strong negative
reactions when removed.”
Motivators factors; when absent, both satisfaction and motivation are hampered. Lead to
satisfaction and motivation when present.
In the responses of employees to situations at work, Herzberg discovered a duality of

views toward the work experience. The context of the job, or the surroundings and the things
outside the scope of the task content, was associated with job experiences that most
frequently led to positive feelings. Contrarily, it was discovered that factors promoting
adverse reactions were connected to avoiding discomfort. Once more, elements that promote
positive reactions are those that promote personal development or meet psychological
requirements. Herzberg classified the job's task content and elements that promote growth as
"satisfiers" and the job's "context/surroundings" and factors that promote pain avoidance as
"dissatisfiers.” According to Herzberg, some job factors result in satisfaction while other job
factors prevent dissatisfaction but the opposite of “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction” and the
opposite of “Dissatisfaction” is “No Dissatisfaction”.
Source:https://www.slidesalad.com/product/herzbergs-motivation-hygiene-theory-
powerpoint-template
The following are the satisfiers—factors that operate as motivators in the workplace:
130
MPA-102/OSOU
Achievement: The feeling of fulfillment that comes from solving issues on one's own,
finishing a task, and observing the results of one's efforts.
Recognition: Positive acknowledgment of a job well done or another specific

accomplishment, as opposed to a more generalized "human relations" presentation of
rewards.
Work itself: the job's duties and their level of interest, variety, difficulty, and lack of
boredom. Responsibility: Having complete control over how and when activities are to be
completed, as well as being held fully responsible and accountable for the accomplishment of
particular tasks or the performance of others.
Growth and Advancement: Moving up to a more difficult assignment. a sense of potential

for development and growth, as well as genuine satisfaction from learning new things and
being able to do new things.
Workplace motivation depends on several factors, including issues related to hygiene.

Long-term satisfaction is not produced by these. But if these elements are absent or
unavailable at work, it will result in dissatisfaction. To put it another way, hygiene factors are
those components of a job that, when acceptable or reasonable, calm employees and prevent
them from becoming dissatisfied. In other words, hygiene factors are those factors that, when
absent from a job, relax people and prevent them from being uncomfortable. These aspects of
work are extrinsic. Because they are necessary to prevent dissatisfaction, hygiene factors are
sometimes known as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors. These elements sum up the work
environment or circumstance. The hygiene factors represented the physiological demands
that people sought and expected to be met. Among the hygiene factors are:
Pay - The pay scale ought to be fair and respectable. It must be comparable to and fiercely
competitive with similar products and services.
Company Policies and Administrative Policies - Policies should not be unduly rigid in the
workplace. They must be authentic and transparent. Include flexible work hours, an uniform
code, intervals, holiday time, and more.
Fringe Benefits:- Extra benefits should be provided to employees, such as health insurance
policies (medical), family benefits, employee assistance programs, etc.
Physical Workplace Conditions: The workplace should be clean, safe, and healthy. Modern
and well-maintained work tools are required.
Interpersonal Relationship:- Relationships with peers, superiors, and subordinates should be
appropriate and acceptable for all parties involved. There shouldn't be any dispute or
elements of shame.
Job Security - The organizations are required to guarantee the employees' jobs.
According to Herzberg, “an employee is either dissatisfied or not dissatisfied with

hygienic factors, and he is either satisfied or not satisfied with motivational factors. The
inference is that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are two distinct continuum's rather than
opposites.” As opposed to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, a neutral condition exists.
About employment motivational variables, an employee is either neutral (satisfied) or
131
MPA-102/OSOU
dissatisfied (unsatisfied). Similar to this, an employee's attitude on hygienic issues might be

either negative or positive (neutral).
Herzberg's theory clarifies why a worker could despise his job yet continue to work
for the company, or why he might like his job but leave the company. This is so because
these two distinct and separate feelings are influenced by different types of stimuli. The
factors that can affect how a worker feels about his or her employer are environmental or
hygienic factors. Motivational factors dictate how an employee feels about his or her
employment. If hygiene standards are not met, employees won't be attracted to a company.
However, when a worker is at work, influencing hygienic aspects won't help them perform
better.
Rarely does one group of factors influence the other, and each set operates
independently of the other. What matters is that satisfiers create long-lasting attitudes while
dissatisfiers merely affect human attitudes in the short term. Dissatisfiers discuss how a
person interacts with the context and setting in which he works. They have very little impact
on fostering healthy work attitudes and primarily serve to avert job unhappiness. Contrarily,
satisfiers are tied to one's work, such as the nature of the job, the task at hand, the
development of the task's capability, etc. They are successful in inspiring people to perform
at their best. Dissatisfiers and maintenance factors are referred to as hygiene factors by
Herzberg, whereas satisfiers are referred to as motivators and growth factors.
Hygiene and motivation are different, distinct factors that are not in opposition to or
the polar opposite of one another. For instance, the reverse of job satisfaction, job
dissatisfaction, solely denotes the absence of job satisfaction. Similarly, job satisfaction is not
the opposite of job dissatisfaction; rather, it simply signifies that there is no such thing.
Because of this, these two are composed of two uni-polar features that barely influence one
another. The motivation-hygiene theory's three guiding principles are as follows:
The elements that contribute to job satisfaction are different from those that cause job
dissatisfaction. Achievement leads to growth, and achievement generally requires completing
a task. Tasks are independent of hygiene factors.
 Dissatisfaction is not the opposite of job satisfaction; it is also not just the absence of
job satisfactions. Two separate feelings are satisfaction and dissatisfaction. They are
not at extremes of the same continuum. They were known as "Uni-
polarCharacteristics" by Herzberg.
 Motivators affect dissatisfaction for a lot longer than hygiene elements do in terms of
preventing it. Workplace motivators are more self-sustaining and do not need regular
supervision. However, cleanliness standards are correlated with things that we can
never fully satisfy our appetite for. Since the need for hygiene improvement
continually reappears, frequently with greater severity, it must be applied repeatedly.
At all times, hygiene needs to be renewed. The bulk of strategies employed by
businesses to "buy" motivated behaviour have proven to be unproductive over time
since long-standing motivation issues endure. This was unavoidable because only
132
MPA-102/OSOU
factors related to the task itself were enhanced, and these factors don't have a lasting
impact on employee motivation.
Figure 2; source; https://www.sketchbubble.com/en/presentation-herzbergs-two-factor-theory.html
Herzberg divides employees in organisations into two groups and gives them the
names "hygiene seekers" and "motivation seekers" after explaining the significance of the
hygiene and motivational components.
The impact of successful hygiene seekers on the organization will be of two types.
For starters, because they are more motivated by external rewards than internal rewards, they
will lead the organization to 'as is, where is.' Using army terminology, Herzberg refers to
them as 'barrack soldiers.' Second, they impart their motivational attitudes to their
subordinates and create an environment of extrinsic reward in the organization. Their
influence is frequently out of proportion to their long-term effectiveness. Third, even after
fulfilling hygiene needs, a hygiene seeker may feel unmotivated.
Insufficient pay, without a doubt, contributes to dissatisfaction, but higher pay does
not guarantee higher efficiency. According to Paul and Robertson, "no amount of
environmental improvement can compensate for task impoverishment." If we want to
motivate people, we must look at the task we assign them. Attention on hygiene factors
would stifle creativity, increase absenteeism, increase the frequency of failures, and limit or
eliminate opportunities for initiative and achievement.
Characteristics of Hygiene and Motivation Seekers:
Hygiene seeker Motivation Seeker

i. Nature-inspired motivation i.Because of the task's nature.
ii. Increased and ongoing ii.A higher tolerance for unhygienic
dissatisfaction with his job conditions when considering job-related
content considerations. For instance, a coworker,
iii. Excessive response that is job security, or salary.
133
MPA-102/OSOU
satisfied to improvement iii.There was a lessening of response to

in hygiene factors. hygiene factor-factor improvements.
iv. Short-term satisfaction iv.Similar.
v. Excessive retaliation to v.When hygiene is lacking, the displeasure is
complaints when hygiene more subtle.
conditions are not vi.Increases its satisfaction when a task is
improved completed
vi. Feels little satisfaction in vii.Demonstrates the ability to take pleasure in
doing tasks at work . the type of work he undertakes.
vii. Has little regard for the viii.Positivity in one's outlook on life and work
nature and quality of the both work and life in general
work he does. ix.Reaps the benefits of experience
viii. Cynicism against the good professionally
things in life, employment, x.Thoughtful and honest belief systems
and life in general
ix. Lacks the ability to benefit
professionally from
experience
x. Sensitive to cultural noises
10.5 JOB ENRICHMENT
According to motivation-hygienic theory, management must supply hygiene factors to

avoid employee dissatisfaction, as well as intrinsic work variables to ensure that employees
are satisfied with their tasks. According to Herzberg, intrinsic motivation requires job
enrichment, which is a constant management activity.
 The task should be challenging enough to draw out all of the employee's potential.
 Employees should be given more responsibility when they exhibit rising levels of
ability; and
 The company should consider automating the process of replacing an employee with
one who has a lower degree of expertise if the job cannot be created to maximise the
person's full skills. A person's motivation will suffer if they are not used to their full
potential.
The term "job enrichment" refers to a strategy employed by managers to maximise

each employee's intrinsic drive to work, which is the real driver of job happiness. Job
enrichment was originally a 1960s idea built on Frederick Herzberg's research, but Yale
University research has greatly expanded on it. The job enrichment notion refers to
production- and profit-oriented style of management as well as a strategy to give people's
work experiences purpose. It is based on the assumption that people are not driven by what
management does to them in the form of rewards, privileges, or punishment, nor by the
134
MPA-102/OSOU
setting or context in which they work. Only via direct engagement with the work itself, or the
content of their occupations, can people cultivate long-lasting motivation.
Pay, benefits, the working environment, working conditions, and the standard of
supervision are all important issues that cannot be disregarded or given only minimal
consideration. A workforce might be significantly hampered by dissatisfaction with hygiene
factors. A lack of discontent may result from appropriately meeting these demands. However,
motivating employees requires that they take initiative with their work.
Expensive turnover or quit rates, absenteeism, tardiness, union disputes, work

stoppages, high training expenses, unsatisfactory production quality, and low levels of
production in recent years are just a few of the problems managers deal with. Additionally,
they have been observing rapid change and turbulence in employee behaviour patterns.The
goal of job enrichment is to solve these issues for the benefit of both the employee and the
business.
10.6 JOB LOADING
Herzberg argues that rather than providing an opportunity for advancement in his current
position, management frequently succeeds in lessening an employee's contribution when
trying to improve his work. This is what he refers to as "horizontal job loading," as opposed
to "vertical loading," which offers motivating reasons. He believes that the major flaw in
prior programmes focused on job expansion has been horizontal loading. He provides some
illustrations of this strategy, (Herzberg, 1968)
 Challenging the employee by increasing the amount of production expected of him. If
he tightens 10,000 bolts a day, see if he can tighten 20,000 a day. “If the job is already
zero in motivation, multiplying zero by anything still equals zero.” (Herzberg, 1968)
 Adding another meaningless task to the existing one, usually some routine electrical
activity. “The arithmetic here is adding zero to zero.” (Herzberg, 1968)
 Rotating the assignments of several jobs that really should be enriched. This means,
for example, washing dishes for a while, and then washing silverware. “The
arithmetic is substituting one zero for another zero”. (Herzberg, 1968)
 Removing the most difficult parts of the assignment to free the worker to accomplish
more of the less challenging assignments. “This traditional industrial engineering
approach amounts to subtraction in the hope of accomplishing addition.” (Herzberg,
1968)
Herzberg acknowledges that not all of the theories of motivation through job
enrichment have been proven to be effective as of yet, but he provides the seven-point
checklist in Exhibit I as a useful tool for anyone who wants to re-evaluate the motivators in
the positions he has influence over.
Herzberg outlines a ten-step approach that managers can use to inspire their workforce. They
consist of: (Lakshmipathy, 2012)
135
MPA-102/OSOU
1. Pick the positions where poor attitudes, expensive hygiene, and performance-related
incentives are present.
2. Approach the work with the belief that it is changeable.
3. Make a list of potential improvements to the occupations without thinking about their
viability.
4. Sort the list to remove any recommendations that are more about motivational
hygiene.
5. Look for generalisations on the list, such as "give them greater responsibility," which
is rarely implemented in practise.
6. Remove recommendations for horizontal loading by screening the list.
7. Employees whose duties are to be enhanced should not directly participate.
8. Two comparable groups should be selected for the initial job enrichment experiments,
one to serve as an experimental group and the other as a control group.
9. Be ready for a brief decline in performance in the experimental group at first because
switching to a new job may cause it.
10. Anticipate that the adjustments being made will make the first-line supervisors
anxious and hostile.
Through these tests, the supervisory functionaries will be able to recognise tasks they
have previously overlooked and allocate more time to evaluating their coworkers'
performance and providing training.
10.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN MASLOW AND HERZBERG
The two-factor theory is widely used since it is in line with Maslow's hierarchy of
needs. Hierarchy. Maslow and Herzberg have a propensity for oversimplifying the
motivational process, focusing on the same relationships, and addressing the same issue.
Maslow developed the theory of intermediate needs, and Herzberg defined goals or rewards.
Herzberg advocated the use of hygiene factors to assist people in satisfying their lower-level
needs, despite his attempts to clarify and hedge on the need hierarchy and shed new light on
the content of work motivation. To satisfy higher-level needs, motivators are advised.
Maslow's approach suggests a hierarchical (sequential) structure with higher weight given to
unmet demands and progression through the hierarchy in an organized or "cascade" form.
Individuals will be motivated by objects of lower or higher rank, according to Maslow.
Both models demonstrate similar markets. As a result, it is intriguing to see how the
two models are placed next to one another.
Maslow's lower-order needs and higher-order demands are generally equal to the
hygiene factors and motivational factors, respectively. Both approaches presuppose that
distinct wants and energy influence behavior. Despite certain similarities between the two
models, there are a lot of differences between them.
Maslow and Herzberg's Theories of Motivation: Key Differences
 Maslow's Theory is a general theory of motivation that states that the primary variable
in motivation is the need to satisfy wants. On the other hand, Herzberg's theory of
136
MPA-102/OSOU
motivation demonstrates that some factors at work influence job satisfaction or

dissatisfaction.
 Herzberg's theory is clear-cut and prescriptive compared to Maslow's descriptive
nature.
 The fulfilment of human needs is the foundation of Maslow's hypothesis. On the other
hand, the Herzberg theory is grounded in incentives and praise.
 Maslow's theory states that needs should be satisfied from the most basic to the most
sophisticated. The existence of such a series is not supported by Herzberg's theory,
though.
 The idea put forth by Maslow states that an individual's unfulfilled needs act as a
stimulant. In contrast, Herzberg's theory demonstrates that an individual's behaviour
and skills are influenced by unmet wants.
 According to Maslow, a person's needs can be classified into two groups: needs for
survival/deficiency and needs for progress. On the other hand, Herzberg's model
divides a person's wants into motivational and hygiene aspects.
 Any unmet need of an individual serves as an incentive according to Maslow's theory.
In contrast to Herzberg, only higher-level needs are considered motivators.
10.8 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF HERZBERG'S THEORY
It is likewise incorrect to assume that the two sets of elements largely influence one
way. The mutual exclusivity of the dimensions was contested by some. In other
circumstances, it was discovered that blue-collar workers perceived "maintenance issues" as
motivators. In one study, it was discovered that factors related to hygiene were just as
effective at inspiring workers as their motivators. It is impossible to establish a clear
difference between the elements that contribute to satisfaction and those that contribute to
dissatisfaction. Herzberg's philosophy spreads the misconception that motivators must be
used when dealing with managers and that cleanliness measures alone are insufficient to
encourage employees. This duality is problematic because it keeps a gap open between
organizational subsystems that ought to be integrated for efficient performance.
Managers, accountants, and engineers are among the knowledge professionals for
whom the theory is most useful. The majority of investigations have demonstrated that the
hypothesis is relevant when the personnel is professional in nature. The notion is not as well
supported by studies of manual laborers. Therefore, Herzberg's research is not indicative of
the workforce as a whole.
The approach gives too much weight to "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction" rather than
an individual's degree of performance. Status, salary, and interpersonal relationships—which
are typically regarded as significant factors of satisfaction—are not given much weight.
Additional research has challenged the assumption that higher levels of satisfaction translate
into better performance and challenged the relationship between motivation and contentment.
Contrary to Herzberg's assumptions, motivation, satisfaction, and performance are all
independent variables with unique relationships.
137
MPA-102/OSOU
Herzberg's contribution to work motivation is undeniably significant, notwithstanding

the criticisms of the two-factor theory, many of which are founded on empirical evidence. He
emphasized the importance of job substance in motivation, which had hitherto been
underemphasized. One of his contributions that is unquestionably more well-known is the
idea of job enrichment. The practice of giving workers more control over the planning and
management of their work as a means of boosting motivation and satisfaction is largely due
to Herzberg's thesis.
10.9 CONCLUSION
It is asserted that Herzberg's theories have an application to social responsibility and

contemporary ethical management. He was knowledgeable about and made an effort to
impart the ethical management ideas that many leaders today have. Still find it challenging to
understand, particularly in commercial groups. In this respect, Herzberg's theories are still
relevant today, with the exception of the global implications of accountability, honesty,
fairness, and empathy in business. It is also suggested that Herzberg was concerned with
people’s well-being at work. Underpinning his beliefs and teachings, he essentially sought to
increase empathy and compassion in the workplace rather than focusing just on enhancing
organizational performance.
It is believed that Herzberg's theories have an application to social responsibility and

contemporary ethical management. He was knowledgeable about and made an effort to
impart the ethical management ideas that many leaders today, especially in business
organizations, still find difficult to understand. Herzberg's ideas are still applicable today in
this regard, with the exception that the worldwide implications of responsibility, fairness,
justice, and compassion in business. Additionally, it is asserted that Herzberg was primarily
focused on employees' well-being at work. Underpinning his beliefs and teachings, he
essentially sought to increase empathy and compassion in the workplace rather than focusing
just on enhancing organizational performance. When considering the theory's significance, it
is important to note that by 1968.
Herzberg claims that the two-factor theory is one of the most widely replicated studies
on work attitudes because it has been tested sixteen times in a wide range of contexts and has
been supported by research using various methodologies that agreed with Herzberg's original
conclusions regarding intrinsic employee motivation. Despite the complaints, Herzberg made
a significant contribution to work motivation. He emphasized the value of having job content
and job enrichment to increase work satisfaction.
10.10 KEY CONCEPTS
Critical incident method: It entails a process that involves close study of human
behaviour, which is quite important. These notes on the episodes serve as a point of reference
for establishing psychological theories and resolving practical problems.
138
MPA-102/OSOU
10.11 ACTIVITES
1. Discuss Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation.
2. What are the major elements of Herzberg's motivation hygiene theory?
10.12 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
 Retrieved from www.netmba.com: http://netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/

 Herzberg, F. (1968). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Havard
Business Review, 114.
 Lakshmipathy, V. (2012). Fedrick Herzberg. In V. P. D. Prasad, Administrative
Thinkers (pp. 60-71). New Delhi: Sterling.
 https://www.simplypsychology.org/herzbergs-two-factor-theory.html
 https://www.managementstudyguide.com/herzbergs-theory-motivation.htm
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory
139
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-11: DOUGLAS Mc GREGOR
Structure:
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Theories of motivation
11.3 Life and works of Douglas McGregor
11.4. Contribution of Douglas McGregor
11.4.1 Theory X and Theory Y
11. 4.2 Theory Z
11. 6 Critical Evaluation
11.7. Conclusion
11.8 Key Concepts
11.10 Activities
The objective of this unit is to enable the students to:

 Understand the importance of motivational theories and studies in an organization.
More particularly it is aimed to discuss the contribution of Douglas Macgregor to the
study of socio-psychological approaches to the study of Public Administration. After
studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Understand assumptions of theory X and theory Y and managerial implications of the
theories of McGregor and its implications for organisational processes.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Motivation psychology is a study of how biological, psychological, and

environmental variables contribute to motivation. That is, what do the body and brain
contribute to motivation; what mental processes contribute; and finally, how material
incentives, goals, and their mental representations motivate individuals? Motivation varies
within a person at different times or among different people at the same time. The purpose of
the psychology of motivation is to explain how and why that happens.
Motivation of individuals is vital to all organisations; but it is the most difficult factor to
manage. Motivation is the set of forces that lead people to behave in particular ways. Some
people want money, some want challenges, and some want power. What each unique person
in an organisation wants from work has an instrumental role in determining that person’s
motivation to work. If motivation is deficient; the manager faces the more complex situation
of determining what will motivate the employees to work effectively and efficiently.
140
MPA-102/OSOU
Therefore, managers need to understand the nature of individual motivation, especially as it

applies to work situations.
Many administrative thinkers have developed motivational theories to explain what
factors motivate the individuals in the organization. Among them, Douglas McGregor is one
of the notable thinkers. In this context, Douglas McGregor’s motivational models in the
organizational context are discussed hereunder.
11.2 THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
People’s need may be grouped into two categories: primary and secondary needs.
Primary needs are things that people require to sustain themselves; therefore, food, water, and
shelter. Needs of this type are instinctive and physiologically based. Secondary needs, on the
other hand, are requirements based more in psychology and are learned from the environment
and culture in which the person lives. Examples include the needs for achievement,
autonomy, power, order, affiliation, and understanding. Secondary needs often arise in
organisational settings, so it is especially important to consider them when examining
motivated behaviour. For example, if people are to be satisfied with their psychological
contracts with their organisation, the inducements offered by the organisation must be
consistent with their own unique needs.
Based on these premises, administrative thinkers, in the early 1960s, initiated searching
for new theoretical approaches to identify the motivational factor i.e., types of needs that
people want and the way these needs could be satisfied so that people could be motivated.
The following are the views of administrative thinkers on motivation.
Abraham Maslow suggested the theory of need hierarchy. He explained motivation

through the satisfaction of needs arranged in a hierarchical order. Needs are conditions
within the individual that are essential and necessary for the maintenance of life and the
nurturance of growth and well-being. Hunger and thirst exemplify two biological needs that
arise from the body’s requirement for food and water. These are required nutrients for the
maintenance of life.
Herzberg’s two-factor theory, also known as motivation-hygiene theory, was

originally intended to address employee motivation and recognized two sources of job
satisfaction. He argued that motivating factors influence job satisfaction because they are
based on an individual’s need for personal growth: achievement, recognition, work itself,
responsibility, and advancement.
Alderfer’s theory of motivation expands on the work of Maslow and takes the premise
of need categories a bit further. He observes that when lower needs are satisfied, they occupy
less of our attention, but the higher needs tend to become more important, the more we
pursue them.
McClelland took a different approach to conceptualize needs and argued that needs are
developed and learned, and focused his research away from satisfaction. He was also
adamant that only one dominant motive can be present in our behaviour at a time.
141
MPA-102/OSOU
McClelland categorized the needs or motives into achievement, affiliation, and power and
saw them as being influenced by either internal drivers or extrinsic factors.
Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory integrates needs, equity, and reinforcement
theories to explain how we choose from alternative forms of voluntary behaviour based on
the belief that decisions will have desired outcomes.
Adams’ equity theory of motivation based on social exchange theory, states that we
are motivated when treated equitably, and we receive what we consider fair for our efforts. It
suggests that we not only compare our contributions to the number of rewards we receive but
also compare them to what others receive for the same amount of input.
Douglas McGregor proposed two theories, Theory X and Theory Y, to explain

employee motivation and its implications for management. He divided employees into
Theory X employees who avoid work and dislike responsibility and Theory Y employees
who enjoy work and exert effort when they have control in the workplace.
The above theories of motivation approach the problems of motivation from different
perspectives, but all of them emphasise similar sets of relationships. These relationships
pertain to the individual, his needs, his perception of how he can satisfy his needs, and
whether his need satisfaction is equitable. However, it is to be noted that these theories have
their relevance only to particular contexts, and when the context changes, they may not work
because they are not universal theories, which can be applied in all situations.
11.3 LIFE AND WORKS OF DOUGLAS MURRAY McGREGOR
Douglas Murray McGregor (September 1906 – 1 October 1964) was born in

Detroit, Michigan in September, 1906. He obtained Engineering (Mechanical from Rangoon
Institute of Technology and M.A and Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University. In his
school days he worked in The McGregor Institute, first known as the Mission for Homeless
Men, serving the Detroit homeless population with spiritual and career services.
He joined as a lecturer at Harvard University in 1935 and later he moved to
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to establish industrial section and consultancy
work in 1937. In 1948 he became president of Antioch College in New York. In 1954 he
returned to MIT as a faculty member of the Sloan School of Management. He was also
Director of Social Science Research council, National Training Laboratories and Board
Member of the foundation for research on human behaviour.
McGregor was a student of Abraham Maslow and contributed much to the
development of the management and motivational theory, and is best known for his “Theory
X and Theory Y” as presented in his book ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’ (1960). It is hailed
as the most original and seminal book on industrial psychology. This book has a profound
influence on management education and practice. His other books the Leadership and
Motivation (1966) and ‘Professional Manager” ((1967) are a major step ahead of his
unconventional thinking in linking behavioural concepts to organizational behaviour and
142
MPA-102/OSOU
showing how the human side of the enterprise can be developed through appropriate
managerial intervention and understanding.
11.4 CONTRIBUTION OF DOUGLAS Mc GREGOR
11.4.1 Theory X and Theory Y
The main argument of McGregor’s work is that “the theoretical assumptions which the
management holds about controlling its human resources determine the whole character of
the enterprise.” Like other psychologists, McGregor studies the assumptions about human
behaviour, which underline the managerial actions. His theoretical construct characterising
‘Theory X’ and ‘Theory Y’ assumes a quest for high performance in the organisation. The
management’s action of motivating human beings in the organisation, according to
McGregor, involves certain assumptions, generalisations and hypotheses relating to human
behaviour and human nature. These assumptions serve the purpose of predicting human
behaviour. The basic assumptions about human behaviour may differ considerably because of
the complexity of factors influencing human beings. McGregor presents these assumptions on
two opposite sides: Theory X and Theory Y.
a) ASSUMPTIONS OF THEORY X: THE COHESIVE COMPOSITIONS
Theory X is based on the traditional approach of organization that man works under external
control and pressure. The following, according to McGregor, are the assumptions of Theory
X:
• The average human being has an inherent dislike for work and will avoid it if he can;
basically he is lazy and works as little as possible. This assumption of management places
stress on productivity, and rewards for performance. The underlying belief is that
management must counteract an inherent human tendency to avoid work.
• Because of this human characteristic of dislike for work, most people must be coerced,
controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort
toward the achievement of organizational objectives.
• The average human being lacks ambition, dislikes or avoids responsibility, and prefers to be
led; even the promise of rewards is not enough to overcome it. On the other hand, an average
man may accept rewards as well as demand more such awards. Therefore, more than
rewards, the supervision, control, punishment etc., would help the management to check the
tendency to avoid work in their employees.
• The average human being is inherently self-centred and indifferent to organisational needs.
• The average human being is resistant to change.
143
MPA-102/OSOU
Theory X views that people are passive or resistant to organisational needs and need to be
persuaded, rewarded, punished or controlled to achieve organisational needs. It is based on
the traditional conception of control and direction. It is traditionally known as “the carrot and
the stick” theory, and is based practically on the mechanistic approach to human relations.
Managers subscribing to these views about human nature attempt to structure control and
closely supervise their employees. They feel that external control is most appropriate for
dealing with irresponsible and immature employees. McGregor believes that these
assumptions about human nature have not changed drastically though there is a considerable
change in behavioural patterns. He argues that this change is not because of changes in
human nature, but because of changes in the industrial organisation, management philosophy,
policy, and practice.
The Hawthorne studies, research findings by Likert and other behavioural studies
suggest that the assumptions of Theory X cannot be meaningfully explained. McGregor
himself questions the validity of Theory X. The assumptions about human motivation fail to
motivate employees to work toward organizational goals. He says “the ‘carrot and stick’
theory of motivation which goes along with Theory X works reasonably well under certain
circumstances”. But this “theory does not work at all once man has reached an adequate
subsistence level and is motivated primarily by higher needs”. McGregor argues that theory
X fails to describe or explain human nature. McGregor’s generalisation is that “so long as the
assumptions of theory X continue to influence managerial strategy, we will fail to discover,
let alone utilise the potentialities of the average human being”.
b) ASSUMPTIONS OF THEORY Y: THE ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS OF

INTEGRATION AND SELF-CONTROL
McGregor comes out with an alternative, “Theory Y” with the underlying principle of
integration and self-control which replaces traditional concepts of direction and control.
Viewing positively in the area of human needs and man’s psychological quest for satisfaction
of them as a wanting animal, McGregor formulates this theory which offers a number of
alternative assumptions for the integration of the individual and organizational goals.
Theory Y takes the opposite view Theory X and assumes that:
 Human-being by nature are not resistant to organisational needs. He does not

inherently dislike work. On the other hand, if the conditions (physical and
psychological) are favourable, seek satisfaction and take the work as natural as play.
 People will exercise self-direction and self-control in the services of objectives to
which they are committed.
 Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their
achievement.
 Average human-being has a hidden capacity to develop and accept responsibility.
 Average human-being has the capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of

creativity and imagination to solve organizational problems.
144
MPA-102/OSOU
 Management must provide necessary conditions to the employees so that they can
achieve goals through organisational objectives.
 In the context of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average
human-being are only partially utilized.
The assumptions of Theory Y suggest a new approach in management. It emphasises

the co-operative endeavour of management and employees. The attempt is to get maximum
output with minimum amount of control and direction. Generally, no conflict is visible
between organisational goals and individual goals. This theory postulates that people can be
encouraged to perform better and thus recommends increased decentralisation of power,
delegation of responsibility, job enlargement, employee participation, consultative
management and performance appraisal in which the employee actively participates.
Theory Y leads to a preoccupation with the nature of relationships, with creating an

environment which encourages commitment to organisational objectives and which provides
opportunities for the maximum exercise of initiative, ingenuity, and self-direction in
achieving them. This theory recognises interdependence of human organisations and
participative management. The central principle of theory Y is that integration of behaviours
is the key process in management. The concept of integration reflects a recognition of the
needs of the individual and those of the organisation. Koontz and his colleagues summarised
the implications of Theory X and Theory Y assumptions in the following table.
Table I- Theory X and Theory Y comparison
Key managerial Theory X: People dislike work; Theory Y: People like work;
activities people must be forced to work; people work best under self-
people do not willingly assume direction; people like to assume
responsibility. responsibility.
A Planning Superior sets objectives for Superior and subordinate set
(including subordinates. objectives jointly.
setting There is little participation by There is a great deal of
objectives) subordinates in setting objectives participation by subordinates in
and developing plans. Few setting objectives and developing
alternatives are explored. plans. Many alternatives are
explored.
There is low commitment to There is high commitment to
objectives and plans. objectives and plans.
B Leading Leadership is autocratic, based on Leadership is participative and
authority only. teamwork is based on
competence.
People follow orders, but hidden People seek responsibility, feel
resistance and mistrust exist. accountable, and are committed
to performance.
145
MPA-102/OSOU
Communication is one-way, top- Communication is two-way with

down, with little feedback. a great deal of feedback.
Information flow is limited. Necessary information flows
freely.
C Controlling Control is external and rigid. Control is internal and based on
&appraising self-control.
Superior acts as a judge. Superior acts as a coach.
There is low trust in appraisal There is high trust in appraisal.
Focus is on the past, with emphasis People learn from the past, but
on fault finding. focus on the future; feed forward
control emphasises problem
solving.
Source: Harold Koontz, Cyril O'Donnell and Heimz Weihrich, (1984): ‘Management’,
McGraw – Hill International, eighth edition, p. 465.
11.4.2 THEORY Z
Like the Theory X and Theory Y, the study of Theory Z is also important to
understand the factors that motivate employees at the workplace. The managements can
adopt these three or any one of the theories in motivating its employees. Drawing the
inspiration from the works of McGregor theories like Theory Z is developed. Abraham
Maslow in his seminal paper has proposed Theory Z and mostly focused on self-
transcendence as a human phenomenon and concern (a personality trait that involves the
expansion of personal boundaries, including, potentially, experiencing spiritual ideas such as
considering oneself an integral part of the universe). The value of self-transcendence is
ahead of all material values, including self-actualization. Maslow believed the ideal
organization would harness the human drive for self-transcendence, as well as the
motivations of his original pyramid. Several other Management experts such as William
Ouchi have supported Theory Z.
 THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THEORY Z:
A strong company philosophy and culture: The company philosophy and culture need to
be understood and embodied by all employees, and employees need to believe in the work
they’re doing.
Long-term staff development and employment: The organization and management

team need to have measures and programs in place to develop employees. Employment is
usually long-term, and promotion is steady and measured. This leads to loyalty from team
members.
Consensus in decisions: Employees are encouraged and expected to take part in

organizational decisions.
146
MPA-102/OSOU
Generalist employees: Because employees have a greater responsibility in making decisions

and understand all aspects of the organization, they ought to be generalists. However,
employees are still expected to have specialized career responsibilities.
Concern for the happiness and well-being of workers: The organization shows sincere
concern for the health and happiness of its employees and their families. It takes measures
and creates programs to help foster this happiness and well-being.
Informal control with formalized measures: Employees are empowered to perform tasks
the way they see fit, and management is quite hands-off. However, there should be
formalized measures in place to assess work quality and performance.
Individual responsibility: The organization recognizes the individual contributions but

always within the context of the team as a whole.
11.5 CRITICAL EVALUATION
Douglas McGregor, though, makes constructive contributions to the human

motivation theory, he has undermined the traditional organizational concepts such as
economic man and control and direction of employees. Despite many theories of motivation,
the carrot and stick theory (use of rewards and punishments), in practice, still holds good to
manage the organizations. McGregor Theory Y has been criticized for being too idealistic.
This theory has never been tested adequately, across the organizations and cross-cultural
context, world over. McGregor himself calls his Theory Y an open invitation to innovation.
Unlike the modern societies, in the traditional societies the management mostly believes in
the use of external control over the employees to realize the stated goals of the organization.
In the context of globalization, particularly, in the 21st century, several changes are
taking place in business models, automation of production processes, changes in technology
and business environment, and changes in people's perception. All these are ever changing
and will have an impact on the motivation of human-beings, particularly in the organizational
structures. Hence they need to be studied constantly and find out the factors that motivate an
individual.
11.6 CONCLUSION
Motivation is vital to all organisations and management has to create a working

environment (physical and psychological) to motivate the employees. McGregor studied the
assumptions about human behaviour and classified them in two opposite points- i.e., Theory
X and Theory Y. Theory X view is that people are passive or resistant to organisational needs
and need to be persuaded, rewarded, punished or controlled to achieve organisational needs.
On the other hand, Theory Y takes the opposite view. The assumptions of Theory Y
147
MPA-102/OSOU
emphasise the cooperative endeavour of management and employees. The central principle in
the assumptions of theory Y is that integration of behaviours is the key process in
management. While Theory Z of William Ouchi focused on increasing employee loyalty to
the company by providing a job for life with a strong focus on the well-being of the
employee, both on and off the job.
While discussing the application of Theory Y in his The Human Side of the
Enterprise, McGregor attempted to critique prevailing managerial strategies vis-à-vis
personnel practices adopted by the management. His research in industry indicates a high
correlation between the acceptance of responsibility and commitment to objectives. He has
discovered greater long-run advantages in allowing the subordinate to learn by experience
than in simply telling them where their planning has been unrealistic or inadequate. The
managers need to understand the nature of individual motivation, especially as it applies to
work situations. To sum, despite certain limitations, McGregor studies provide us analytical
tools to analyse and predict the human behaviour in organization.
11.7 KEY CONCEPTS
1. Hierarchy of needs: Abraham Maslow has identified five human needs in order of
priority. They are: (i) physical needs (food, cloth, shelter, etc); (ii) safety or security
needs (iii) social (affiliation needs); (iv) esteem (recognition) needs; and (v) self-
actualization (challenging work, growth and development of the organization).
2. Job Enlargement: Adding additional but similar duties to a job.
3. Job Enrichment: Adding different kinds of duties so that the work is both a higher level
and more personally satisfying.
4. Job Satisfaction: The totality of an employee’s feelings about various aspects of his or
her work; an emotional appraisal of weather a job lives up to an employee’s values..
5. Motivation: An amalgam of all of the factors in one’s working environment that foster
(positively or negatively closed productive efforts.
6. Peer Group: People at the same organisational level in terms of rank, title or salary.
7. Reinforcement: An inducement to perform in a particular manner. Positive
reinforcement occurs when an individual receives a desire reward that is contingent upon
some prescribed behaviour. Negative reinforcement occurs when an individual works to
avoid an undesirable outcome.
11.8 ACTIVITIES
1. Explain the different motivational theories and their relevance to organizational efficiency.
2. Theory X is based on traditional conception of control and direction. Explain.
3. Analyse the assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y.
4. Examine the feasibility of Theory Y across the companies in the context of Globalisation.
148
MPA-102/OSOU
5. Analyse the implications of Theory X and Theory assumptions in an organizational set-up.
5. What are the assumptions of Theory Z?
11.9 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
 Beata Soudera (2019): ‘Popular theories of motivation in psychology’, Georgia, USA:

Life University.
 Douglas McGregor (1967): The Professional Manager, edited by Caroline McGregor and
Waren G. Rennies, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
 Harold Koontz, Cyril O'Donnell and Heimz Weihrich, (1984): ‘Management’, New
York: McGraw – Hill International, eighth edition.
 McGregor, Douglas, (1960): ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’, New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
 Sharma, PD, (2010): ‘Douglas McGregor’, in (ed) Prasad, D. Ravindra, V.S. Prasad, P.
Satyanarayan, and Y. Pardhasardhy ‘Administrative Thinkers’, New Delhi: Sterling
Publishers.
149
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-12: HERBERT SIMON

Structure:
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Brief Academic Life and work
12.3 Criticism to Classical Theory
12.3.1 Specialisation or Division of Labor
12.3.2 Unity of Command
12.3.3 Span of Control
12.3.4 Basics of Organisational Grouping
12.3.5 Centralisation and Decentralisation
12.4 Decision Making
12.5 Rationality in Decision Making
12.5.1 Types of Rastionality
12.5.2 Bounded Rationality
12.6 Conclusion
12.7 Key Concepts
12.8 Activities
After reading this unit, you will learn about

 Life and work of Herbert Simon
 Types of Decisions given by H.Simon
 His idea about Bounded Rationality
12.1 INTRODUCTION
Herbert Simon is known for his phenomenal contribution in the field of behavioral
sciences. He dubbed the classical principles as proverbs as these did not have any scientific
base. He also discarded politics- administration dichotomy and laid emphasis on public
policies oriented studies. Therefore, he advocated interdisciplinary study of the discipline. He
150
MPA-102/OSOU
described the decision making as the heart of administration and developed various models of
decision making processes. The present module is divided into four parts. The first part
presents a brief description of his classical principles and politics administration dichotomy.
The second part elaborates his contribution in the field of behavioral sciences. The third part
describes various decision making models and their limitations. The fourth part concludes by
focusing on rational and non rational elements in decision making.
12.2 BRIEF ACADEMIC LIFE AND WORK
Herbert Alexander Simon (15th June, 1916 - 9th February, 2001) born in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, USA. He completed his high school in 1933 and entered in the University of
Chicago with an interest in making social science more mathematical, and an intent to major
in economics. He majored instead in political science. Simon’s dissertation, later published as
Administrative Behaviour, is as relevant to political science and to organization theory, as is
to economics. He obtained his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago in
the year 1943. Simon developed the behavioural theory of decision making and the concepts
of bounded rationality and satisficing. He was awarded Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic
Sciences in memoriam of Alfred Nobel for his research work into the decision making
process within economic organizations in 1978.Crozier referred to Simon as “the father of the
sciences of decision” on the occasion he was conferred Nobel Prize.
He authored Administrative Behavior (1945 1st edition & 1997 4th edition), Public
Administration (1950 joint authorship), Models of Man (1957), Organizations (1958 & 1993
co authorship with J G March), The New Science of Management Decision (1960& 1977),
The Sciences of Artificial (1969 & 1981), Models of Thought (1979), Models of Bounded
Rationality (1982), Reason in Human Affairs (1983), Models of my Life (1991) and many
others.
Simon argued that administration revolves around rationality and decision making. He was of
the opinion that the development of the pure science of administration is based in social
psychology (behavioural aspects) and its (science of administration) normative base (ideals
and prescriptions) is founded in political science, economics and sociology. He favoured the
coexistence of both empirical and normative approaches for the growth of the discipline of
public administration.
151
MPA-102/OSOU
Simon views the organisation as a total system, a composite of all the sub-systems which
serve to produce the desired output. He assumes that the element of organisational structure
and functions emanate from the characteristics of human problem-solving processes and
rational choices.
12.3 CRITICISM TO CLASSICAL THEORY
The classical theory is characterized with: Impersonality; Specialization; Efficiency;

and Hierarchy.Herbert Simon criticized the traditional approach on the ground that the
principles established in the field of administration must be able to describe the organisation
(how it looks?) and its working (how it works?). He applied this test on the traditional
principles enunciated by Lyndall F. Urwick and Luther Gulick. He was much influenced by
Follett’s idea of group dynamism in organization, Human Relations approach of Elton Mayo
and Chester Barnards’s ‘Functions of the Executive’. He begins his academic life with the
critical indictment of the traditional theorists and argues against the immutable principles
propounded by them.
Simon dubbed the said principles of administration as ‘proverbs’. He states: “It is a fatal
defect of the current principles of administration that, like proverbs, they occur in pairs. For
almost every principle one can find an equally plausible and equally contradictory principle.
Although the two principles of the pair will lead to exactly opposite organisational
recommendations, there is nothing in theory to indicate which is proper one to apply” and
thus devoid of empirical validation. Simon is highly critical of the traditional principles
particularly those relating to unity of command, span of control, line and staff, centralization
and decentralization, hierarchy and basis of organizational grouping. He points out that in
these principles it is presumed that administrative efficiency would increase if there will be
specialization, unity of command, span of control, and members of organization are
organized on hierarchical basis as well as workers are grouped according to classification of
purpose, process, place and people.
Simon considers these assumptions are not principles because there is a gap between the
principles prescribed and their effective practice. He opines that for each of the classical
principles, there is an opposite and equally valid principle. His objection to each of these
principles is as under:
152
MPA-102/OSOU
12.3.1 SPECIALIZATION OR DIVISION OF LABOR
It is usually believed that specialization brings efficiency in administration but it is

not true. To him, specialization is not a condition of efficient administrations. It means
different people doing different types of work. It also means division of work based on the
ability and efficiency of the person concerned. But the real problem of administration is not
specialization but specialization in a particular manner that may lead to administrative
efficiency.
12.3.2 UNITY OF COMMAND
Simon feels that there is contradiction between specialization and unity of command.
Both cannot go together. Simon considers that subordinates don’t receive orders only from
one superior rather they are also instructed by various kinds of specialists for performing their
official/ professional duties. The commands from more than one superior, instead of solving
problem, give rise to conflicts. In such a situation this principle becomes meaningless
because there can be conflicting commands from many sources .and it is not possible for a
person to obey conflicting commands.
12.3.3 SPAN OF CONTROL
Simon has subjected the concept of span of control for further evaluation. He observes
that the limited number of subordinates reporting directly to one supervisor or narrowing the
span of control may result in increase in the number of hierarchical administrative levels in
an organization which consequently has undesirable effect in ensuring effective
communication and also result into excessive ‘red tapism’. Conversely by increasing the span
of control administrators control over subordinates may be weakened. Thus both increase and
decrease in the span of control have undesirable consequences which lead to no agreement as
to the number of subordinates who should work under an administrator.
12.3.4 BASIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL GROUPING
Gulick classified the organisation on the basis of their activities, that is, purpose,
process, persons and place (4P’s). It is also believed by the classical theorists that the
administrative efficiency will increase by grouping workers as per the four principles stated
earlier. But Simon holds that these bases set forth by Gulick are internally inconsistent with
153
MPA-102/OSOU
the principle of Specialization. A closer look of the situation shows that there are
fundamental ambiguities in the meaning of these key terms. Simon considers that there is
only a difference of degree between ‘purpose’ and ‘process’. Purpose may be roughly defined
as the objective achieved through an activity known as process. Purpose and process have
very little differences between themselves. So the purpose and process cannot be strictly
separated. Besides, ‘persons’ (clientele) and ‘place’ are also the part of ‘purpose’. Therefore,
person and place cannot be separated from purpose because as Simon observes that
objectives of the organization are phrased in terms of a service to be provided to the people
and an area for which it is to be provided. Moreover, when one base of an organization is
selected other three are sacrificed. Thus, there is no way to determine which base of an
organization is most appropriate.
12.3.5 CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION
The traditionalists have formulated principles of administration like centralization and

decentralization which are contradictory in nature. According to Simon both these principles
would produce opposite results but which one would be practicable has not been clarified by
them.
 Wilsonian concept
Simon also rejected the ‘Wilsonian’ concept of politics-administration dichotomy. He
observed that policy and administrative functions are performed by both political and
administrative officials. Moreover it is unrealistic to separate them and rejected the politics
administration dichotomy. Simon, along with Smithburg and Thompson did not accorded
recognition to the staff and auxiliary units. Thus, these principles are anything but not
scientifically valid ones and do not have universal relevance. Their inadequacy of diagnosing
the situation and lack of detailed research into the real situation led Simon to evolve a new
approach to organizational situation. The approach is empirical one and based on the theories
and methodology of logical positivism with the focus on decision making. He analyzed
human behavior in an organization in terms of its value preferences in decision making
process and maintained that this is the missing link that resulted in the yawning gap between
the principles and practice by the previous approaches. He advocated the proposition that
one, who claims to be scientific in his approach, must exclude value judgments and
concentrate on facts. In his own words: “An Administrative Science, like any Science, is
154
MPA-102/OSOU
concerned with factual statements. There is no place for ethical statements in the study of
science.”
 Administrative Behaviour
Simon’s first book Administrative Behaviour (first published in 1947) brought him in
prominence and recognized for its insights into human behaviour in general and Simon’s idea
of “limited rationality” in particular. He himself consider that the book has provided him a
platform for conducting research in human decision making; the formalized decision making
of operation research and management science; and thinking and problem solving activities
of individual human beings. The term administrative behaviour used to describe a process by
which people within organizations work. Simon contributed to understand the administrative
behaviour by criticizing the classical approached used for the purpose. He clarified that the
process of specifying goals in an organization and formalizing the process to pursue the goals
contribute to rational behaviour in organizations. He criticized the concept of “economic
man” and proposed the concept of “administrative man” for understanding human behaviour
in organizations.
Simon wrote, “Traditional economic theory postulates an “economic man”, who, in

course of being “economic” is also “rational”. This man is assumed to have knowledge of the
relevant aspects of his environment which, if not absolutely complete, is at least impressively
clear and voluminous”. Hence, man is assumed to possess “well-organized and stable system
of preferences”, and therefore have the capacity and skills to arrive at a decision of selecting
the “alternative course of action” to get the maximum possible. Simon suggests that
administrator need to select the alternative which leads to the “most complete achievement of
goals”. The need for an administrative theory arises as “there are practical limits to human
rationality”. Further, Simon consider that “these limits are not static” rather varies with the
organization’s environmental changes”. Therefore, there is a need on the part of the
administration to change the environment in order to bring practical rationality in individual’s
decisions. Thus, the administrative theory requires providing for rational and non rational
aspects of human social behaviour.
Simon used the term “The Economic Man” symbolizing the ideal and rational model for
decision making and the term “The Administrative Man” representing the process of decision
making in real situation.
The decisions making is the heart of administration and based both on empirical (Factual) and
normative (value premises) elements. Simon differentiated Facts and Values with the
155
MPA-102/OSOU
example of foreman of a Park who is looking after the alternatives like grass-cutting,
planting, road maintenance work, cleanup work, etc. The values for him are: legislatively and
socially determined standards; cleanliness to be maintained; etc. While facts are: budgets;
work methods; unit costs etc.
Simon states: “In the process of decision those alternatives are which are considered
to be appropriate means of reaching desired ends. Ends themselves, however, are often
merely instrumental to more final objectives. We are thus led to the conception of a series, or
hierarchy, of ends. Rationality has to do with the construction of means – ends chains of this
kind”. But this means – ends hierarchy leading to achievement of goals have certain
limitations of absence of clarity of comparative element in decision making, overlapping
between facts and values and insufficient recognition to time variables in purposive
behaviour. Simon also states that the theory of decision making involves three steps: the
listing of all the alternative strategies; the determination of all consequences of the respective
listed strategies and; the comparative evaluation of these sets of consequences. Thus, the
knowledge of the person engaged in all these activities of means –ends chain of decision
making process in an organisation is immensely significant. It is “economic man” or “rational
decision model”. It is an ideal model. The ideal model of “economic man” obviously has
certain limitations arising out of practical realities like the skills, habits, and reflexes, values,
intellectual levels or knowledge, information level, etc. of the person expected to take
decisions in the organization. Simon observed that actual behaviour is influences in three
following ways:
1. Rationality requires a complete knowledge and anticipation of consequences that will

follow on each choice. In fact, knowledge of consequences is always fragmentary.
2. Since these questions lie in the future, imagination must apply the lack of experienced
feeling in attaching value to them. But values can be only imperfectly anticipated.
3. Rationality requires a choice among all possible alternative behaviors. In actual behavior,
only a very few of all these possible alternatives come to mind.
Thus, a model of “administrative man” model was proposed to understand the

administrative behavior. This new model is different from the “economic man” model as it
looks “for a course of action” which is “satisfactory” or “good enough” and not necessarily
the “best” one. Second the “administrative man” while taking decision “takes into account
just a few of the factors that he regards as most relevant and crucial” instead of taking the
156
MPA-102/OSOU
situation or “real world” “in all of its complexity”. Thus the “administrative model is simple,
with a limited number of alternatives and /or information, intended to select satisfying
alternative (sometimes for maximizing), and relatively with simplistic decision making
process.
12.4 DECISION MAKING
1) Focus on Decision Making

The main contribution of Simon relates to the analysis of organizational behavior from the
standpoint of decision-making, particularly its non-rational character. According to his thesis,
administrative theory should be based primarily around the question of choice and decision
making. He considers it as the core of all administrative activities. To him, all administrative
action is decision-making. He says that “the task of `deciding’ pervades the entire
administrative organization quite as much as does the task of ‘doing’- indeed, it is integrally
tied up with the latter. A theory of administration must include principle of organization that
will insure correct decision making, just as it must include principles that will insure effective
action.” In fact, he equated administration with decision-making.
In his book titled “The New Science of Management Decision” he wrote: “The computer and
the new decision making techniques associated with it are bringing changes to white collar,
executive and professional work as momentous as those that the introduction of machinery
has brought to manual jobs.” He emphasized on ‘how decisions are made and how they be
made more effectively.’ Pomerol and Adam (2004) stated that Simon’s basic idea is that the
correct angle from which to approach a study of organization management is that of the
decision and the action that follows. They also quoted the book ‘Organizations (1993)’to
emphasize the fact that “decision making, and the flow of information within organizations
that instructs, informs, and supports decision making processes” is central unifying construct
of this book and not the hierarchy and it had become his life time academic goal. Simon has
also described himself as somebody “who has devoted his scientific career to understanding
human choice (Simon 1991)”.
2) Decision Making
Decision-making is an important function of an administrative officer. Every administrator,
in public sector as well as private sector, is required to make decision on various matters.
Even simple tasks cannot be performed without someone being there to take decision. For
157
MPA-102/OSOU
example an office cannot start functioning unless there is someone to decide about allocation
of work among employees. On the other hand very important decisions affecting the social
and economic development of the country have to be taken by the senior administrators and
politicians. Many of these complicated decisions are arrived at after a great deal of processing
and discussions at various levels of administration. It may, therefore, be worthwhile for the
administrators to know about the art and science of decision making and to understand the
various processes involved in arriving at a decision. The decision which the organization
makes for an individual generally include specifying his functions, allocating authority and
setting limits to his choice. This is done to coordinate the activities of the individuals in an
organization. But the process of decision does not come to an end. In fact decision making-
involves the execution of decision in which even a person working at the lower level has an
essential role to play in the accomplishment of the objective of the organization.
Herbert Simon attacked the classical theory of organization based mainly on structure
approach. He, therefore, tried to study the behavior of the managers in the organizations. He
found in his analysis that the main job of the manager is to take decisions. So much so that
Simon went to the extent of using ‘decision-making’ as synonymous with ‘managing’. He felt
that in an organization managers, who are in senior positions, have to perform the crucial
decision making functions. Actually decisions are being taken at lower levels, middle level
and the senior levels. At lower levels decisions are taken only about basic work processes
while at the middle level major operating decisions are taken. The top level managers take
decisions to provide purpose and objective to the organization and to monitor its
performance. Thus Simon viewed organization as a structure of decision makers as decisions
are taken at all levels of the organization.
According to Simon, decision-making is mainly concerned with making choices out of the
available courses of action. However, he felt that only the final act of making the choice is
often taken as decision making. But, according to him, decision-making is a whole and quite
complex process comprising of several activities culminating in the final choice.
3) Fact-Values in Decision-Making
Herbert Simon views that each decision is based on a number of value premises i.e.
arguments based on rational thinking. Some of these premises pertain to the decision maker’s
preferences, some to his social conditions and some others to the communication he receives
158
MPA-102/OSOU
from component units of the organization. To Simon these premises are of two kinds – values
and facts.
He distinguished between facts and values. In simple words: we ask a question what is. The
answer of this question is fact and that can be verified or falsified. A fact is a statement of
reality and therefore a factual premise can be proved by observable a measurable means.
While, the values, that is, the answer of what ought to be are the wishes, objectives and
aspirations or any one of these. The value is an expression of preference. Every decision
consists of a logical combination of fact value premises. Simon says that the behavior of a
rational person can be controlled if the value and factual premises upon which his decision is
based are specified for him. The control over the person can be full or partial.
If all premises are specified then the control is full and if some are left to his discretion then it
is partial. However, there is one important difference between permitting a discretion based
of value premises and a discretion based on factual premises. The latter can always be
evaluated as correct or incorrect where as it is not possible in the case of former. This
distinction between factual and value premises has an obvious bearing on the question of how
discretion can be reconciled with responsibility and accountability and what the line of
division is to be between policy and administration. Simon advocated the separation of facts
and values for developing the science of administration. He was of the belief that this kind of
science can only be based on facts.
4) Model of Decision Making or Process of Decision Making

The problems requiring decision/s is/are not facts or factual data rather those are identified or
formulated or perceived to achieve some specified objective/s by the decision maker. In
Simon’s words “problems do not come to administrators carefully wrapped in bundles with
the value elements and factual elements neatly sorted”. He also stated that decision “is a
matter of compromise” which means there may be conflicting objectives which are intended
to be pursued and in the mind of the decision maker. “Simon stressed the multi criterion
aspects of decision” observed by Pomerol and Adam (2004). Simon is of the opinion that the
decision making is not only an integral part of management rather synonymous to
‘Management’ In fact, he is known as a ‘Decision Theorist’. Simon’s model of decision
making comprises of three elements: identify all the possible alternatives; determine all the
possible consequences of these alternatives; and evaluate all the possible consequences. It is
different from the Dewey’s view which is also comprises of three components:
159
MPA-102/OSOU
1. What is the problem?

2. What are the alternatives?
3. Which alternative is best?
Thus, there is a difference in between the two scholars and the former emphasis on the
mechanism of decision making process and evaluation of decision based on a criterion
established for the purpose or parameters so identified. On the other hand the later is
concerned with the contents of the decision.
Simon in his work with March established that three key cognitive factors: attention;
information; and stress play an important role in decision making process. Simon and March
observe that “….. the ways in which attention is allocated are critical to understanding
decision”. Pomerol and Adam interpreting them state that “Cognitive limitations play a
substantial role in the concept of bounded rationality in that, as Simon stressed, they preclude
the exhaustive study of all alternatives and their consequences”.
Simon identified four phases (Simon 1977) of decision making process; which are
1. Intelligence;
2. Design;
3. Choice; and
4. Review
 Intelligence: It involves finding occasions calling for a decision. At this stage,
executive tries to understand the organization’s environment. It spends quite some
time in surveying the social, economic, technical and political environment to
identify new conditions which need fresh action.
 Design: It comprises of inventing, developing and analyzing all possible courses of
action. An executive spends even a larger chunk of time seeking to invent, design
and develop possible courses of action for handling situation where decisions are
needed.
 Choice: This involves selecting the particular course from the available alternatives
courses of action. For this an executive needs a small fraction of his time, since he
has to choose among courses already developed.
 Review: It comprises of activities related to review the alternatives and their
consequences. Pomerol and Adam state: “The role of information and attention is
particularly fundamental in first two phases of decision making because managers
can only choose between alternatives that they know about and they are able to
160
MPA-102/OSOU
document”. They also quoted Simon as “information acts as a constraint on

decision”.
Simon says that though these stages appear to be simple and one precedes the other, in
practice the sequence is more complex than what it appears to be. Moreover, Simon was
aware of interdependence between various stages and exclusiveness of each stage as a
decision in itself. Further, according to Simon, the execution of decision is also regarded as a
decision making process as that reviews the consequences of alternative chosen and that
brings new kinds of information for the decision maker. Thus, whole managerial actions are
integral part of the process of decision making and it eliminated the conception that the
decisions are “the moment of choice”. Simon states: “All the images falsify decision by
focusing on the final moment” (Simon 1977 p.40).
5) Programmed and Non-programmed Decisions

Simon also contributed one more aspect to the decision by making distinction between
programmed decisions and non-programmed decisions. He stated, “Decisions are
programmed to the extent that they are repetitive and routine, to the extent that a definite
procedure has been worked out for handling them do that they don’t have to be treated from
scratch each time they occur”. In other words, these are the decisions in which a program i.e.
a set of rules, regulations, and formulae exist in the mind of the decision-maker or on paper
or computer which give the solutions as soon as it is applied to the problem. These are the
decisions where a definite procedure is evolved to deal with them and thus each decision
need not to be dealt in separately. Computer programmes are designed to take such decisions.
The decisions are non-programmed, which have not been or cannot be taken according to set
rules and regulations “to the extent that they are novel, unstructured, and unusually
consequential”. In such cases decision-makers have to add their own judgment before a
decision is arrived at. Non-programmed decisions are novel in nature and have to be tackled
independently because no cut and trial methods are available to handle them. This may be
because a similar case has not occurred before or because it may be particularly a difficult
case. Human beings although capable of acting intelligently are likely to be less efficient in
such a situation.
Usually, there are very few decisions which can be classified as completely
programmed or completely non-programmed. Real life situations usually require decisions
which are a mixture of the two. It is obvious that the programmed decisions are amenable to
161
MPA-102/OSOU
mechanical analysis on computers while non-programmed decisions are not. In case of the
mixed decisions, that part can be taken over by computers which is programmed.
Simon’s reason for distinguishing between programmed and non-programmed

decision making is that different techniques are used for handling programmed and non-
programmed problems. The techniques to deal with programmed decisions are habit,
knowledge and skill while the techniques to deal with non-programmed decisions are
selection and training of executive possessing higher skills and innovative ability. However,
these are traditional techniques and have been in use for centuries. However in the recent past
there has been a revolution in the use of such techniques According to Simon, this revolution
has been due to the development and application of techniques such as mathematic analysis,
operational research, electronic data processing, and computer. These techniques were
previously used for programmed decision-making but now are being used for non-
programmed also.
The following Table covers some of these techniques:
Decision-making Techniques
Types of Decisions
1. Programmed : Routine, repetitive decisions (Traditional)
 Habit
 Clerical routine: standard operating procedures
 Organization structure: common expectations a system of sub goals well defined
information channels
Programmed : Routine, repetitive decisions (Modern)
Operations Research:
a. Mathematical analysis models
b. Computer simulation
Programmed : Organization develops specific process for handling them (Traditional)
 Judgment, intuition and creativity
2. Non Programmed One-short, ill-structured novel, policy decision(Traditional)

 Rules of thumb
 Selection and training of training of executives
Non Programmed Handled by general problem solving process (Modern)
 Heuristic problem solving techniques applied to:
162
MPA-102/OSOU
1.training human decision makers

2.constructing heuristic computer program
Source: S.R. Maheshwari, p. 228.
Simon, in fact, remained personally active in developing computer program for solving
nonprogrammed problems. To him, same process can be applied to the sphere of
administrative decision-making. He suggests that it is possible to construct mathematical
models to make a rational choice. To him, use of such techniques will lead to centralization in
decision-making and will radically change the concept of delegating responsibility. Further,
with the use of computer more and more decisions can become programmed which in turn
increases rationality in decision making process. Simon’s aim is to use computers to increase
rationality therefore he thinks it most desirable to computerize as much of the decision
making process as possible. Such automation of decision making will make the executive
work easier and satisfying.
12.5 RATIONALITY IN DECISION MAKING
Simon used the term “rationality” with adjectives like “bounded rationality”,
“substantive rationality” and procedural rationality”. He emphasized the necessity of being
rational in making a choice. He defines rationality as one concerned with the selection of
preferred behavior alternatives in terms of some system of values whereby the consequences
of behavior can be evaluated. To him it requires a total knowledge and anticipation of the
consequences that will follow on each choice. It also requires a choice from among all
possible alternative behaviors. Simon explained the term rationality as “the matching of
means to ends”. The term ‘means’—instrument purpose–refers to any state or situation which
is earlier in time than some other state or situation while the term ‘ends’—ultimate purpose—
refers to any state or situation which is later in a purpose chain or set of chains. The same
state or situation may always be a means from one point of view and an ultimate objective
from another.
According to Simon, if appropriate means are chosen to achieve designed goals the
decision is rational. However, there are many complications to this simple test of rationality.
Pomerol and Adam consider that sometimes it raises more problems instead solving them as
an individual can draw any conclusions from a false premise and on the other hand a decision
taken on erroneous diagnosis may be found rational in some sense. Many times, it is difficult
163
MPA-102/OSOU
to separate means from ends because an apparent ‘end’ may only be a ‘means’ for some
future ‘end’. Besides this, often the connection between organization activities is obscure or
there are certain internal conflicts and contradictions among the ultimate objectives, or the
means selected to attain them (Manoj Sharma, p. 66).
12.5.1 TYPES OF RATIONALITY
Simon differentiates between different types of rationality. According to him, a decision is :

1. Objectively rational when it maximizes given value in a given situation;
2. Subjectively rational when it maximizes attainment relative to knowledge of the subject;
3. Consciously rational where adjustment of means to ends is a conscious process;
4. Deliberatively rational, when the adjustment of means to ends has been deliberatively
sought;
5. Organizationally rational when decision is aimed at the organization’s goal; and
6. Personally rational when the decision if directed to the individual’s goal.
Simon disputes the concept of total rationality in administrative behavior. To him,

human behavior is neither totally rational nor totally irrational. He believes that that the
concept of total rationality is based on certain unrealistic assumptions such as a) The
decisions maker’s omniscience regarding all available alternatives and their possible
consequences; b) his unlimited computational ability; and c) his complete and persistent
preference ordering in the light of all possible implications. Simon rejected such assumptions
and maintains that rationality is neither perfectly rational nor irrational. Instead he gave the
concept of bounded rationality because in any given situation people can see only a few
alternatives and predict only a few consequences and moreover make mistakes in doing so.
Thus instead of ‘one best way approach’ of Taylor, man is generally satisfied with decisions
that are good enough which he calls ‘ Satisficing –word derived form ‘satisfaction’ and
‘sufficing’. ‘Satisficing’ involves the choice of a course of action which is satisfactory or at
least good enough. According to Simon, there is a large non-rational, emotional and
unconscious element in man’s thinking and behavior and therefore the concern of the
administrative theory is with the boundary between the rational and non-rational aspects of
human and social behavior.
164
MPA-102/OSOU
This limit to rationality in not static but depends on the environment of organization
the task of administration is to design the environment in such a way that an individual
approach of rationality be as close as practicable in his decisions.
On the basis of the extent of rationality , Simon deals with various models of decision
making that range from complete rationality of ‘economic man’ to complete irrationality of
‘social man.’ He develops the model of ‘administrative man’ who stands next to the
‘economic man.’ According to him, ‘economic man’ maximizes by selecting the best
alternative from all available alternatives while ‘social man’ is an emotional and impulsive
one. As the ‘administrative man’ can’t perceive all possible consequences, he instead of
attempting to arrive at ‘optimal solutions’ is satisfied with good enough.
Thus, an ‘administrative man’ makes his choice taking into account just a few of the
factors which he regards most relevant. Thus he makes his choice without examining all
possible alternatives. In a sense, Simon’s ‘administrative man’ tries to rationalize man, but as
he does not have the ability to maximize he always ends up with ‘satisficing’. However, the
difference between ‘maximizing’ and ‘satisficing’ is relative. Sometimes ‘satisficing’ is very
close to maximizing where as at other times ‘satisficing’ and ‘maximizing’ are very far apart.
Though ‘administrative man’ makes all possible efforts to be rational but somehow he
‘muddle’s through’. But Simon is of the opinion that the gap between the rationality and
irrationality should be tried to be mitigated as far as possible. He suggests various
mechanisms for the purpose. Most importantly he emphasized on computation, automation
and building of reservoirs and information with the latest technology in the era of information
technology.
12.5.2 BOUNDED RATIONALITY
Theory of bounded rationality was proposed in 1950’s as an alternative to classical

omniscient rationality. The bounded rationality refers to the fact that the decisions are not
taken (by agents) with perfect rationality. Simon is of the opinion that human have a bounded
rationality. He rejected the case of perfect rationality. The economic theory assumes that
economic actor maximizes utility by becoming rational agents and taking decisions based on
logic or on cost benefit analysis. Simon was of the opinion that human decisions should not
be assumed as solely based on logical, statistical or certain other formal model but should be
empirically investigated one. Further, the decision making should take into account three
165
MPA-102/OSOU
factors, which are: the type of task; the characteristics of the environment; and the distinct
features of the cognitive system (which also includes experience or expertise) of the decision
maker.
However, in practice, it has been found that the assumptions of economic theory are
not followed rather the decision makers make decisions based on the characteristics of
environment, task which requires decision making, and the knowledge, information and
understanding (current state of research and information) of the decision maker about the
environment and task pertaining to which the decision is to be taken. Moreover, how the
decision is to be taken or the criterion used to take a decision is not fixed but may vary
according to the expertise of the decision maker.
Simon consider that the humans face complexity of environment (in which decisions
to be made) and possess “limited cognitive system” which make the rational decision making
in real life setting impossible one. Moreover, there is limit of human cognitive system and
people may not be informed of all kinds of relevant information required to take perfect
decision. The decisions can be made with reasonable amounts of calculation, and using
relevant information. The expertise to take decisions by using relevant information and after
reasonable calculations limits the quality of decision to the expertise of the decision maker.
Thus, the perfect rationality is not followed rather the theory of bounded rationality (which
underlines use of reasonable amounts of calculation, and incomplete information) is utilized
to take decisions and relatively good decisions can be made without the need of analyzing all
available alternatives.
Satisficing refers to choosing an alternatives that meets or exceeds one’s (one or

multidimensional) “aspiration level”. However, the alternative so chosen is not guaranteed to
be either unique or “the best” in the sense of a global optimum in mainstream rational choice
theory. In such situation, Simon proposed that the people must go for ‘satisficing’ instead of
‘maximization’. In simple words, the people must decide to take satisfactory alternative
(decision) based on an adequate criterion from all available options, after evaluating those or
without carrying out a full cost benefit analysis of the possible options. The choice of
alternative may not be to a best option but it is good enough.
166
MPA-102/OSOU
12.6 CONCLUSION
The module makes it amply clear that Herbert Simon made a significant contribution
in the study and development of behavioural science. His quest for scientific study of human
behavior is still relevant for development of discipline and to improve the process of decision
making. He considers the decision making as the heart of administration and it is based on
empirical and normative elements. He favoured the co-existence of both empirical and
normative approaches for the growth of discipline of public administration. However, his
methodology of logical positivism and exclusion of normative considerations in the decision
making process had been subject of criticism by contemporary scholars of practioners of
public administration but this does not be little his contribution in the field of behavioural
sciences and decision making.
12.7 KEY CONCEPTS
1. Programmed Decision: Programme means a plan for solution of a problem. When

decisions are routine and repetitive, these can be program need. Rules and procedures
are evolved to deal with such decisions.
2. Non Programmed Decision: Decisions are non programmed when a new kind of
situation has arisen before decision maker and existing rules and procedures are not
adequate to deal with such situation.
3. Bounded Rationality : Decision maker can not be perfectly rational because he does
not have the complete knowledge of the situation. Under these constraints, he has to
make a choice to the best of this knowledge. This he termed as Bounded rationality.
4. Satisficing: In the context of bounded rationality, Decision maker is not searching for
optimal decision but a satisfactory one. The satisficing administrative man is different
from maximizing economic man.
5. Rational Decision: A rational decision is right conclusion derived from two kind of
premises viz the value premises and the factual premises.
12.8 ACTIVITIES
1. Describe Herbert Simon’s views on classical principles.

2. Explain Herbert Simon’s contribution in the field of decision making.
167
Block-4
Modern Thinkers of 21st Century
Unit-13: Peter Drucker
Unit-14: Fred.W.Riggs
Unit-15: Rensis Likert
Unit-16: Dwight Waldo

MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-13: PETER F. DRUCKER
Structure:
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Early Life
13.3 Contribution to Management
13.4 The Strategic Ducker
13.4.1 Innovation
13.5 Industry and Market Changes
13.6 Outsourcing
13.7 Criticism of Peter Drucker
13.8 Conclusion
13.9 Key Concepts
13.10 Activities
After reading this Unit, you should be able to:

• Explain the development of contemporary management, highlighting the necessity for
managers to have a solid knowledge of fundamental management abilities;
• Exhibit knowledge of the procedures managers must take to set organisational
objectives & their subsequent involvement in completing the mission;
• Describe the core ideals and principles that underpin management practice and give
instances of how they are put into effect in the organization's daily operations.
13.1 INTRODUCTION
Peter Ferdinand Drucker, still referred to as "the management genius," is credited

with establishing the corporate society. His remarkable career had a ripple effect on the
other management theories put out by various experts. His attention is assured by merely
mentioning his name. The key concerns, trends, & the development of upcoming decades as
well as the challenges and opportunities facing the world are all meticulously examined in
Dr. Drucker's theory. His evaluations concentrate on the present and take it into account
when formulating future plans. Drucker was an astute observer and a natural networker.
Either profound or striking, his writings were both. He had an impact on academics,
researchers, and practitioners because he was an interdisciplinary thought leader. He was
credited for developing practical models, including a significant fraction that had already
reached the end of their useful lives.
169
MPA-102/OSOU
13.2 EARLY LIFE
Peter F. Drucker, also known as Peter Ferdinand Drucker, was an American

management consultant, educator, and author. He was born in Vienna, Austria, on November
19, 1909, and passed away in Claremont, California, on November 11, 2005. His writings
contributed to establishing the theoretical and practical foundation for modern commercial
enterprise. He was a trailblazer in the advancement of managerial education and introduced
the concept of objectives-based management.
Drucker, who graduated with a Ph.D. in international and public law from the
University of Frankfurt in 1931, first worked as a journalist in Germany before coming to
England in 1933, just as Adolf Hitler was taking over. He remained in England up to 1937,
during which point he moved to the United States to work as a foreign journalist for several
journals and as a consultant to British Banks.
He remained in England until 1937, at which point he moved to the US to work as a
foreign correspondent for numerous British periodicals and a bank counselor for British
banks. He acquired American citizenship in 1943. Drucker later served as an instructor at
New York University and Claremont Graduate University (1950–71). (1971–2005).
Although Drucker was infamous for detesting the term "consultant," it was through
consulting that he wielded the most influence, starting with his 1943 request to look into the
organizational structure of the General Motors Corporation. Concept of the Organization, the
follow-up work, offered the first in-depth examination of a sizable corporation as a social
entity. Later, Drucker served as an advisor for numerous organizations, groups, and
governments
13.3 CONTRIBUTION TO MANAGEMENT
i) Leadership: More doing than a dash

a. Peter Drucker on Leadership
“Leadership is the lifting of a man’s vision to higher sights, the raising of a man’s
performance to a higher standard, the building of a man’s personality beyond its normal
limitations.”
- Peter Drucker, the Practice of Management (1954)
For Drucker, Leadership is more about inspiring others to transcend their limitations. This
has little connection to either "leadership abilities" or "charisma," if anything at all. It is
uninteresting, unromantic, and ordinary. Performance is at its core. First of all, being a leader
is not inherently good or desired. Being a leader is a means. Thus, the key query is, to what
aim does leadership serve?
Drucker asserts that charisma may destroy leaders by encouraging their rigidity and
reluctance to change. He concentrated on the efficacy of leaders and how they may encourage
"volunteerism" in their followers by eschewing command and control. He saw leadership as a
170
MPA-102/OSOU
learned habit rather than an innate trait. "Leadership must be learnt and can be acquired," he
stated. Leaders are those that learn first, and then assist the team in learning. To him,
leadership is described by outcomes rather than by virtues. He concentrated upon effective
leadership, which went beyond making speeches or winning friends. Position or power is not
as important as leadership behavior. It is responsibility.” For him, the success of the
organization lies in the foundation of effective leadership.
b. Requirements for Effective Leadership
According to Drucker, there are four essential requirements to be an Effective Leader which
he defines in his book “Peter F Drucker on Practical Leadership”.
Following are the requirements that he proclaimed for an effective leader:-
c. Leadership- Defining the Mission

Effective leadership starts with carefully considering, articulating, and establishing the
organization's mission in a clear and conspicuous manner. The leader establishes and
upholds the standards, defines the priorities, and establishes the goals. Effective leaders
recognise painfully that they're not in charge of the universe, so they make sacrifices.
However, the excellent leader has considered what is right & desirable before agreeing to a
compromise. The leader's primary responsibility is to serve as the trumpet that blows
clearly. His objectives are what set a leader apart from a misleader. Whether a leader is
effective depends on whether the compromises he makes with the limitations of reality,
which may include political, economic, or human challenges, are compatible with his goals
and mission or steer him away from them.
d. Leadership as Responsibility
The second prerequisite is that leader views leadership as a duty rather than a position of
authority or privilege. Rarely are effective leaders tolerant. But they don't point the finger at
others when anything goes wrong. Strong associates are desired by effective leaders, who
push, support, and even take pride in them. They also view their associates' and
subordinates' victories as their victories rather than as threats because they believe that they
are ultimately responsible for the errors made by their associates and subordinates.
e. Leadership- Creating Human Energies

An competent leader is aware of the possibility that people have a propensity for ambition.
However, they understand that the danger is considerably lower than receiving subpar
service. They are also aware that the worst possible accusation against the leader is for group
to disintegrate the moment he leaves or passes away. They are aware that developing human
energies and vision is the ultimate goal of leadership.
f. Leadership - Earning Trust

Gaining trust is the ultimate prerequisite for effective leadership. There won't be any
following if not. It is not required to like a leader in order to trust them. It's also not required
to concur with them. Trust is having faith that a leader is sincere in what they say. It is a
very antiquated idea in something called integrity. It is necessary for a leader's actions and
171
MPA-102/OSOU
declared ideals to be in harmony, if not identical. Effective leadership is mostly built on

consistency rather than cunningness.
g. Application of Leadership in Present Scenario

Workplaces and organisations are undergoing significant change. Old categories and ideas
are no longer applicable. The workforce and work today, according to Peter F. Drucker, are
"qualitatively a& quantitatively different not just from what they were in the beginning
year of this century but also what they were at any time in history in their configurations, in
one‘s process, in their problems, and in their structures." These fundamental modifications
appear familiar now that they have been joined to the digital revolution, which will result in
new approaches to working, thinking, & leading. Unprecedented opportunities and threats
will be presented to leaders. Hence, the application of Drucker’s leadership concept
becomes important. He proclaimed that leadership can and must be learned. Effective
leadership will decide the success of organizations. In the face of dynamic changes, leaders
must be responsible and should work for the creation of human energies.
h. Marketing:
“Still the youngest mind” Peter Drucker, is still revered as the ‘management guru’ in the
business world for his everlasting and profound contribution to developing and leaving an
indelible mark in the works of management. His theories and philosophies still stand out in
the tests of time. He brought a paradigm shift in the nature of marketing. He deals with the
thoroughness of the market analysis. According to Peter Drucker's maxim, management must
determine which of the customer's needs are not sufficiently met by the goods or services
provided to him at the moment. The capacity to pose this question and provide an accurate
response typically distinguishes a thriving company from one that relies on the industry or
economy's upswing. However, whoever is content to ride the wave will likewise be carried
by it.
 Purpose of business
According to him, the purpose of the business is not to generate high-earned profits but
rather to create a strong uphold of customers. Profit is the objective, not the purpose
emphasizing the issue that the management should ask the right questions in order to expand
the roots of its business. Peter F Drucker was not the end but rather a means to an end. The
story of your business revolves around the three basic questions,’’ What is our business?
What will our business be? And what should our business be? He stressed the dire need to
make inquiries about the market. His questionnaire would generally involve knowing the
assumptions of the market, the target audience, the distribution channel, and most
importantly about the non-customers and reasons for their existence. He always asked the
manager to boggle up the questions of what, whose, and how the needs of the customer are
being satisfied.
172
MPA-102/OSOU
13.4 THE STRATEGIC DRUCKER
Marketing and innovation are the lifeblood of any business. Marketing involves
studying the demographics, intricacies, realities, and needs of customers. Not only did the
customer’s strong uphold to the business matter but their retention is inevitable. This is the
most important linchpin of the market-based strategy and profitability. He provided some
useful insights into the market potential and market strength. This involves studying the
market factors which finally decide the expansion and growth of the business, assuming the
growth of the business within the next target period of time, etc. He suggested that
anticipation is the cornerstone of analyzing market trends. By this mission and vision of the
business can be devised. He considered the market, its potential, and its trends as the starting
points, and changes in demographics are the only future events for which anticipation is
possible. Adding to this, the capability to put such questions differentiates the growth
company from the one that depends on the rising trends of the economy. He analyzed the
need for marketing objectives. This was because it facilitates the manager to take two
important and strategic decisions –
What part of the market to concentrate upon in which sector, the business can ace its
competitors and remain at its helm
Drucker included a classification of types of customers. He quoted, “Not all
customers are the same. Some may be loyal and profitable, others profitable but not loyal,
some loyal but not profitable, and others are neither loyal nor profitable.” Classification of
customers is made under four categories- Core customers-main source of business profits, at
risk customers-profitable customers leaving the business due to declining customer
satisfaction, non-profit customers- satisfied customers but not served profitably, Spinners-
price shoppers who come and exit quickly. He continually stressed ‘Going Outside ‘and
knowing the interest of customers and non-customers also known as the ‘Voice of the
customer.
As already discussed before, Drucker considered the customer as the kingpin of the
market. He stressed that the core strategies of the business depend upon the information
about the external environment which envelops the customers, competitors, non-customers,
the evolving technology, and the world. His works showcase the ideology that results are on
the outside.
13.4.1 INNOVATION
Drucker has another concept to his credit which is the correlation between
entrepreneurship, management, and innovation. As per Drucker, the most crucial aspect of
entrepreneurship is innovation.
 Explanation of innovation by Peter Drucker:
How much of creativity is hard effort, how much is inspiration? If the former is
predominant, management's function is constrained: Get the proper individuals on board,
then move aside. If the latter is generally the case, management must take a more active
role. They must create the appropriate roles and procedures, set specific objectives and
173
MPA-102/OSOU
useful benchmarks, and assess progress at each stage. Peter Drucker strikes a midway
ground with his signature masterful nuance. He states it in this essay. That managing
innovation ought to be done in the same way as managing any other industrial company.
However, that does not imply that it is equivalent to other corporate activities. Innovation is
in fact the labour of knowing, not doing. According to Drucker, the best business ideas
originate from meticulously examining 7 areas of opportunity some of which are present in
specific businesses or industries and others which are present in more general social or
demographic trends. Smart leaders will make sure that all seven remain the central focus of
their organisations. However, the analysis will only get you so far. Once you've located a
lucrative opportunity, you still require a creative leap to come up with the appropriate
solution—call it "functional inspiration."
 Sources of Innovation
There are innovations that result from a moment of genius, of course. However, most
inventions, especially those that are successful, come about as a result of a deliberate,
conscious search for innovation chances, which are only present in a few circumstances.
Within a business or industry, there are four such potential areas: unanticipated events,
inconsistencies, process requirements, and market and industry changes.
Demographic shifts, perception shifts, and new information are three more sources of
opportunity that exist outside a corporation in its social & intellectual environment.
It is true that these sources overlap, despite the fact that they may differ in terms of
risk, difficulty, & complexity, & that the opportunity for innovation may exist in more than
one sector at once. However, when taken as a whole, they represent the vast bulk of all
potential for innovation.
 Process Needs
The lack of a modern highway system in Japan is well known to everyone who has
ever driven there. Its roads continue to travel along the routes created in the ninth century
for—or by—oxcarts. An adaption of the reflectors used on American roadways since the
early 1930s is what makes the system function for cars and trucks. Each driver can see
which other vehicles are coming from any of a dozen different ways thanks to the reflector.
This small invention took advantage of a procedural necessity to make traffic flow more
easily and accident-free.
Two developments that were created around 1890 in response to process requirements
gave rise to what we now refer to as the media. One was Linotype, created by Ottmar
Mergenthaler, which allowed for the speedy and mass production of newspapers. Adolph
Ochs of the New York Times, Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World, and William
Randolph Hearst were the first true newspaper publishers. They also created modern
advertising, a social innovation. They were able to effectively deliver news for free thanks to
advertising, with marketing providing the revenue.
174
MPA-102/OSOU
13.5 INDUSTRY AND MARKET CHANGES
Managers might think that market structures are set in stone by the Almighty, yet
they are subject to change and frequently do. Such transition offers a great chance for
creativity.
The brokerage company Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, which was recently obtained
by Equitable Life Assurance Society, is one of the great success stories of recent American
corporate history. Three Harvard Business School graduates who saw how the financial
industry's structure was shifting as institutional investors gained dominance created DL&J
in 1960. These young men possessed little money and connections. Even so, in a short
period of time, their company rose to the top of Wall Street's performance and became a
pioneer in the switch to negotiated fees. It was the initial to incorporate and float.
An industry's structure alters as it expands swiftly; the essential threshold appears to be
around 40% growth in less than ten years. When a new competitor threatens an established
company, the latter is more likely to focus on protecting what it already has than than
launching a counterattack. In fact, established industry leaders repeatedly ignore the fastest-
growing market sectors when market or sector structures change. New prospects rarely align
with how the sector has historically addressed, defined, or organised to service the market.
Therefore, there is a good likelihood that innovators will enjoy a long period of solitude.
 Demographic Changes
The most trustworthy external source of innovation opportunities is demographics. There
are known lead times for demographic occurrences.
The same can be said for Club Mediterranean's accomplishments in the tourism and resort
industries. The formation of a sizable population of well-off and intelligent young adults in
the United States and Europe may have been observed by astute observers by 1970. These
young people were perfect clients for a new and exotic version of the "hangout" of their teen
years since they weren't comfortable with the types of vacation their working-class parents
had taken—the summer weeks at Brighton or Atlantic City.
Although managers have long realised that demographics are important, they have also held
the belief that population data change slowly. But they don't in the twenty-first century.
Indeed, among the most gratifying and least hazardous of entrepreneurial endeavours are the
innovative opportunities facilitated by changes in the number of people—as well as in their
age demographics, education, jobs, and geographic location.
 Changes in Perception
“The glass is half full” and “The glass is half empty” are descriptions of the same
phenomenon but have vastly different meanings. Changing a manager’s perception of glass
from half full to half empty opens up big innovation opportunities.
For instance, the incidence of cancers other than lung cancer, the rate at which cancers can
be cured, or any number of other factors indicate that American health care has improved at
an unprecedented rate over the past two decades, according to all factual evidence.
Nevertheless, the nation is consumed by collective hypocrisy. There has never been more
175
MPA-102/OSOU
anxiety or worry about one's health. Everything seems to suddenly cause cancer, heart
disease, or memory loss before it happens. "Half of the glass is empty".
Americans seem to emphasize how far away they still are from immortality rather
than celebrating significant health improvements. This perspective has provided numerous
opportunities for innovation: markets for all kinds of healthy foods, exercise classes,
jogging equipment, and new health care magazines. In 1983, an indoor exercise equipment
manufacturer was the fastest-growing new business in the United States.
Facts cannot be changed by altering perception. However, their meaning is rapidly

altered as a result. In less than two years, the computer went from being viewed as a threat
and being used only by large businesses to being purchased for income tax purposes. Such a
shift is not always dictated by economics; in fact, it might not matter. Rather than facts,
mood is what tells people if a glass is half full or half empty, and a shift in mood can often
be measured. However, it isn't exotic. It is tangible. It is measurable. You can test it.
Additionally, it offers opportunities for innovation.
 New Knowledge
Knowledge-based innovations differ from all others in the time they take, their casualty
rates, and their predictability, as well as in the challenges they pose to entrepreneurs. Like
most superstars, they can be temperamental, capricious, and hard to direct. They have, for
instance, the longest lead time of all innovations. There is a protracted span between the
emergence of new knowledge and its distillation into usable technology. Then there is
another long period before this new technology appears in the marketplace in products,
processes, or services. Overall, the lead time involved is something like 50 years, a figure
that has not shortened appreciably throughout history.
13.6 OUTSOURCING
One quote By Peter Drucker, that management still leans on today is, “Focus on
what you do best, and outsource the rest.” In other words, companies should only spend
time and money on what they are good at to create wealth for their business and
shareholders. “Outsourcing” can be defined as availing certain products or services from
external sources which in turn helps the company to focus on its core competencies and
increase In-House productivity. Firms avail outsourcing when they believe that certain
products and services can be procured in a better, cheaper, and in more competent way.
Typically, outsourcing takes effect as a cost-cutting measure in various companies. It affects
a wide range of activities for example manufacturing, customer servicing, logistics, etc. the
concept of Outsourcing was conceived in the 1950s and outsourcing has become an
important factor in having a positive effect on trade routes and aids them in sustaining and
acing in the industry.
176
MPA-102/OSOU
 Why should we consider outsourcing as an option:

The main advantage of choosing to outsource is that it lets the company focus on its core
competencies. If a company relocates its complimentary in-house services, then there is
ample scope for focusing on the shortcomings of the core area. It can also aid to increase
efficiency and improve the quality of services or products by eliminating the need to
disperse the attention to the complimentary functions. Outsourcing also benefits in
controlling capital expenditure hence letting the company invest the same in more Important
areas to aid in better products or services. By outsourcing the company delegates its
complementary functions to someone who specializes in the same therefore there is a better
quality of the same assigned function.
 What are the shortcomings of outsourcing:

Outsourcing should also not be a substitute for internal capabilities – companies shouldn’t
“forget” their own capabilities as a result of outsourcing. That can potentially lower value,
rather than raise it. The basic disadvantage of outsourcing is the dispersion of authority and
control. There is also a significant risk of a lack of accountability. Outsourcing also contains
a lot of hidden costs which if not controlled might cost a significant portion of the capital that
is being set aside by outsourcing. Outsourcing might also result in a compromise of quality,
the reason being the delegated company primarily constitutes of freelancers and people who
look more into profits than customer satisfaction of the delegatory company.
 Peter Drucker on outsourcing

Focus on your organization’s values, mission, and vision, and consider outsourcing
everything else.”- (Peter Drucker, Managing in the Next Society)
Peter Drucker’s central tenet of modern management was the belief every company should
focus on core competencies and outsource everything else. Throughout Drucker's body of
work, focus, specialization, prioritizing, and concentration, are overriding themes. He
advocated for focusing on the strengths of the company i.e., the core competency, and
delegating the rest of the non-core competencies.
Peter Drucker viewed outsourcing not merely as a means to cut costs, but also as an
important social innovation—especially for service workers who are hungering to be
challenged in their jobs and to find pathways for advancement.
“If large numbers of people cease to be employees of the organization for which they work,”
Drucker warned, “there are bound to be substantial social repercussions.” (Peter Drucker)
Though Peter Drucker advocated outsourcing as a powerful tool—to help aid innovation, to
better focus your enterprises, improve quality, enhance productivity, to maximize
effectiveness but Drucker also cautioned organizations to be mindful about their decision to
outsource a substantial chunk of their functions or activities because it will affect a charge
number of people and will have various repercussion in the society.
 How does outsourcing affect employees

Because of globalization a lot of organizations are looking forward to outsource their non-
core activities to countries with cheap labor to cut operating expenses. Outsourcing does
177
MPA-102/OSOU
affacet the number of available jobs. Outsourcing mainly affects the unorganized labor
market because their job needs minimal or no skill at all. A company that outsources now
and then might not gain the confidence of this employees since they will always be
expecting to get laid off. It also makes them feel deserted and takes away the sense of
belongingness to the company. On the flip side, there are many pros to outsourcing as well
such as outsourcing reduces workload which in return can help them to take on bigger
responsibilities. It can also help employees’ upskill since it will increase their level of
satisfaction in their job and positively impact retention.
 Application of outsourcing in present-day scenario

While outsourcing is still a very lucrative proposition for companies looking to cut their
operating cost and increase their profit margin thereby pleasing their shareholders,
productivity and efficiency are not the only things that lure them to decide to outsource. Tax
planning, Market structure, political affiliations, etc. to play a vital role in outsourcing or
rather choosing a destination to outsource. Building global teams is one of the most popular
outsourcing trends that has been in great demand as it is a bit easier in terms of cost-
effectiveness. Companies are becoming adaptable and agile as they are more likely to face
challenges while opting for outsourcing to non-core business tasks.
 Knowledge Workers
“Every few hundred years throughout Western history, a sharp transformation has
occurred,” Peter Drucker observed in a 1992 essay for Harvard Business Review. “In a
matter of decades, society altogether rearranges itself – its worldview, its basic values, its
social and political structures, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty years later a new world
exists. And the people born into that world cannot even imagine the world in which their
grandparents lived and into which their parents were born. Our age is such a period of
transformation.”
Drucker rightly predicted a gradual shift from a physical workforce to a knowledge
workforce. The dominant factor in the shift: “knowledge society.”
 Who are knowledge workers?

The term “knowledge worker” was first coined by Peter Drucker in his book, The
Landmarks of Tomorrow (1959). He defined “knowledge workers” as highly skilled people
who apply theoretical and analytical knowledge that has been acquired through formal
training and to pursue their job; develop goods and services. He predicted that knowledge
workers would be the most valuable assets of a 21st-century organization because of their
high level of productivity and creativity. Knowledge workers make their living off their
intellect or their analytical skills unlike unskilled labor or manual labor who make their
living off physical labor. Knowledge workers include Accountants, Legal analysts, IT
personnel etc.
 Peter Drucker on knowledge workers

Peter Drucker was a firm believer that Knowledge workers would become an invaluable
asset to the company. He made a list of questions that every knowledge worker must be
asked at least once a year, whether he thinks his payroll is justified with his work. Whether
178
MPA-102/OSOU
the organization holds him accountable for his contribution and achievements? Whether
they are aware of their goals and plans and whether they have an active solution on how to
achieve them. Peter Drucker became more convinced three decades after Landmarks of
tomorrow that “knowledge” is more valuable and crucial than economic resources like
Land, labor and capital leading to what he referred to as the post-capitalist society.
Not long before he died in 2005, he declared that increasing the
productivity of the knowledge worker was “the most important contribution management
needs to make in the 21st century.” (HBR- What Peter Drucker knew about 2020).
13.7 CRITICISMS OF PETER DRUCKER
There is apparent social conflict in the society wherein the worker’s knowledge has
started to have a bearing on the society. What production would be the result of service and
non-knowledge worker would stand in the face of the society driven by knowledge. Thus,
the pertinent challenge facing the knowledge society would be to provide dignified, decent
jobs with income to non-knowledge workers.
In 1987, The Wall Street Journal looked into a few of his lectures and found that he
occasionally twisted the truth.
Furthermore, despite Drucker's reputation for foresight, his predictions were not always
accurate. He prophesied, for example, that Washington would replace New York as the
financial hub of the United States.
Others contend that "management by objectives," one of Drucker's central ideas, is faulty
and has never been adequately tested. Dale Krueger, a critic, claimed that the approach is
challenging to adopt and that, in order to achieve their objectives, businesses frequently end
up placing too much emphasis on control rather than encouraging creativity.
● General Motors was condemned in Drucker's famous book Concept of the

Corporation even though it was the most prosperous company in the world at the time.
13.8 CONCLUSION
Peter Drucker once said,” I have now reached the age where I know that it is not
enough to be remembered for theories and books. One does not make a difference unless it
is a difference in people’s lives. He envisioned a world where constructing a wealth-
generating capacity (for the people, society, business, and government) is put at the
forefront. His works and theories continue to transform our preconceived notions. His
mission of making a change in society will continue to go on. The sheer force of Drucker’s
writing, the art of his subject, and his clear expression. The core of his ideas does not lie in
the cash value but rather in the way by which his ideas were formulated.
179
MPA-102/OSOU
13.9 KEY CONCEPTS
(1) Effective Leadership :

Effective leadership starts with carefully considering, articulating, and establishing the
organization's mission in a clear and conspicuous manner. The leader establishes and upholds
the standards, defines the priorities, and establishes the goals. Effective leaders recognise
painfully that they're not in charge of the universe, so they make sacrifices.
(2) Knowledge Workers:

The term “knowledge worker” was first coined by Peter Drucker in his book, The Landmarks
of Tomorrow (1959). He defined “knowledge workers” as highly skilled people who apply
theoretical and analytical knowledge that has been acquired through formal training and to
pursue their job; develop goods and services. Knowledge workers make their living off their
intellect or their analytical skills unlike unskilled labor or manual labor who make their living
off physical labor. Knowledge workers include Accountants, Legal analysts, IT personnel etc.
(3) Innovation: According to Drucker, innovation is a key component of entrepreneurship,

whether it be in an already-existing company, a government agency, or a brand-new company
that one person starts in the family kitchen. It is the process through which the entrepreneur
either develops new resources capable of producing wealth or bestows greater wealth-
generating potential onto already existing resources.
(4) Strategic Marketing:

Marketing and innovation are the lifeblood of any business. Marketing involves studying the
demographics, intricacies, realities, and needs of customers. Not only did the customer’s
strong uphold to the business matter but their retention is inevitable. This is the most
important linchpin of the market-based strategy and profitability. He provided some useful
insights into the market potential and market strength.
13.10 ACTIVITIES
1. Critically examine Peter Druker’s contributions to the field of administration.
 https://hbr.org/2002/08/the-discipline-of-innovation
 Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, by Peter Drucker. New
York: Harper and Row, 1985.
 Nehaika Vohra and Kumar Mukul
 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/02560909200
90401
 Peter Drucker on Marketing- an exploration of five tenants.
 Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2022, May 15). Peter F. Drucker.
Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Peter-F-Drucker
180
MPA-102/OSOU
 Drucker, Peter F. "Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest

challenge."IEEE Engineering Management Review 34.2 (2006): 29-29.
 https://hbr.org/2009/11/why-read-peter-
drucker#:~:text=The%20answer%20is%20simple%3A%20Drucker's,the%20conte
nt%20of%20his%20thought
 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0256090920090401
 Peter F. Drucker on Practical Leadership, by Harvard Business Review Press, 2020
 The Effective Executive by Peter F. Drucker
181
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-14: FRED W. RIGGS
Structure:
14.1 Introduction
14.2 About Fred W. Riggs
14.3 Background to Riggs’ Theory Building
14.4 Tools and Approaches used by Riggs
14.5 Contributions of F.W. Riggs: Comparative Administration
14.5.1 Ecological Approach
14.5.2 Fused-Diffracted-Prismatic model
14.5.3 Sala Model
14.5.4 Bazar-Canteen Model-Prismatic Economy
14.6 Riggs and Development Administration
14.7 Analyses of Riggs’ Contributions
14.8 Key Concepts
14.9 Activities
14.10 Further Reading
14.11 References
After going through this Unit, you will:

i. Know about Fred W. Riggs-his life, education, career, awards and works
ii. Contribution of F.W. Riggs in Comparative and Development administration.
14.1INTRODUCTION
A galaxy of administrative thinkers like Max Weber, Luther Gulick, Herbert Simon,
Fred W.Riggs etc. have studied administrative system from different perspectives, out of
them Riggs stands out because he has provided an integrated approach to understanding
administrative system, from both ecological and development perspective. Also, he has been
one of the most innovative thinkers, whose Sala model is indispensable for understanding the
administrative system of developing countries. His vast personal and professional
experiences, prolific writings and contributions, have made him a predominant figure in the
discipline of comparative and development administration. In spite of multiple criticisms of
his approaches and theories, they are immensely relevant for understanding the functioning of
administrative systems in the contemporary times also.
14.2 ABOUT FRED W. RIGGS
Fred W.Riggs is one of the most influential administrative thinker, who has been
pioneer in the field of administrative model building and theory formulations. He was born
182
MPA-102/OSOU
on 3rd July, 1917 in China and died on Feb 9, 2008 in USA. His contributions in the field of
comparative and development administration are well known. He is widely acclaimed for his
ecological approach and Sala model. His theory finds lots of relevance in understanding
administrative system of developing countries.
 EDUCATION
Fred Riggs studied at University of Nanking, China from 1934-35. He got his B.A. from
University of Illinois in 1938. He passed M.A. in 1941 from Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy. He did his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1948.
 POSITIONS HELD
He held several important positions in his entire career. He was Lecturer, City University of
New York, 1947-48; Research Associate, Foreign Policy Association from 1948-51;
Assistant to Director, Public Administration Clearing House, New York, 1951-55; Arthur F.
Bentley Professor of Government, Indiana University, 1956-1967; Professor of Political
Science, University of Hawaii, 1967-1987; Director, Social Science Research Institute,
University of Hawaii, 1970-73; Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii, 1987-till his death
in 2008.
He was associated with various professional organizations like American Society for Public
Administration, National Academy of Public Administration etc. He chaired several
committees and working groups like Comparative Administrative Group (CAG), American
Society for Public Administration (1960-1971) etc.
 VISITING APPOINTMENTS
Visiting Professor, City University of New York, 1974-5.
Visiting Scholar, Institute for Social Studies, The Hague, 1972.
Visiting Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1965-66.
Visiting Professor, University of the Philippines, 1958-59.
Visiting Lecturer, National Officials Training Institute, Korea, 1956.
Visiting Assistant Professor, Yale University, 1955-56
 HONORS &AWARDS
 Dwight Waldo award for lifetime achievements in Public Administration, by

American Society for Public Administration, in April 1991.
 Order of White Elephant, conferred by King of Thailand, in Bangkok, 1986.
183
MPA-102/OSOU
 First non-Asian to be honored by Eastern Regional Organization for Public

Administration, EROPA Conference, Seoul, Korea, 1983.
 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, 1966-67.
 Senior Specialist, East-West Center, University of Hawaii, 1962-1963.
 Fellow, Committee on Comparative Politics of the Social Science Research Institute,
for field research in Thailand, 1957-58.
 MAJOR WORKS
 Fred W.Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1961 ( issued under the auspices of The Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi)
 Fred W. Riggs, Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic
Society, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1964
 Fred. W.Riggs, Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity, East-West
Center Press, Honolulu, 1966
 Fred W.Riggs (ed.), Frontiers of Development Administration, Duke University Press,
1970
 Fred.W.Riggs, Prismatic Society Revisited, General Learning Press, Indiana
University, 1973
 Fred W.Riggs, Applied Prismatics: A Development Perspective, Center for Economic
Development and Administration, Tribhuvan University, 1978
 Fred W.Riggs & Daya Krishna, Development Debate , Printwell, Jaipur, 1987
14.3 BACKGROUND TO RIGGS’ THEORY BUILDING
Riggs developed his theories in a particular background that needs to be understood.

Firstly, there was daunting task of socio-economic development and nation-building before
newly independent countries after second world war and the focus of the western models of
administration was to maintain status-quo rather than bring out socio-economic changes. That
prompted the need for new approaches and models more suitable to the requirements of
developing countries. Second, the traditional Public Administration was formalistic and
legalistic in nature and overlooked the influences of social, cultural, political and economic
environment over law and formal institutions. Further, it was non-comparative in nature and
lacked the approaches and techniques to study the non-western societies. This led to rise of
Comparative approach that helped in addressing many of the weaknesses of traditional
approaches. Third, comparative studies prompted the need for approaches that can explain the
factors responsible for the cross-national and cross-cultural differences in bureaucratic
behavior. Fourth, there was need to account for the causes responsible for the success or
failure of administration in particular ecological settings. These external factors provided the
premise for the development of Riggs’ ecological approach and ideal models.
But one important factor that influenced his writings was the blend of two different
dimensions in his personality. It is commented that, “having his roots in China, he carried
certain elements of Oriental thought. Not only did he preserve the elements of culture and
184
MPA-102/OSOU
education of Asian countries, but also carried affiliation and responsibility towards the same.
Having lived and worked in the U.S. as a part of his academic and professional life, he was
aware of the modern systems and thoughts as well. The knowledge of the two helped him
broaden his understanding to compare the two systems and make inferences” i.
14.4 TOOLS AND APPROACHES USED BY RIGGS
Fred Riggs have basically used three tools to develop his analyses: 1. Ecological
Approach; 2. Structural Functional Approach; and 3. Ideal Models. Ecological approach is
one of the most notable contributions made by Riggs, which was aimed at understanding how
environment affects administration and ways in which administrative activities brings about
changes in the environment. Rigg developed his ecological analysis with the help of
structural-functional approach and ideal models. Hence, the second tool used by Riggs was
structural-functional approach which is based on the premise that every system is made up of
certain structures that perform specific functions. Social structures are considered any pattern
of behavior which has become a standard feature of a social system. Functions are role that
structures play in a system. Riggs has identified five types of functions being performed by
any society: economic, social, communication, symbolic and political ii. An administrative
system also consists of specific structures and above functions are performed by certain
structures in particular ways. The third tool used by Riggs was Ideal models, which he
developed to study the features of administrative system in developing countries. He
developed models corresponding to societies of traditional, modern and developing countries
and his analyses drew from his studies of imperial China, America, Thailand, Philippines and
to an extent India.
Riggs borrowed various terms and concepts from different subjects like Sociology,
Physics and Biology and also proposed his own terms. That is why it is aptly said that the
terms used by Riggs to explain his models are particularly Riggsianiii.
14.5 CONTRIBUTIONS OF F.W. RIGGS: COMPARATIVE

ADMINISTRATION
14.5.1 ECOLOGICAL APPROACH
Ecological approach is one of the most innovative approaches developed by Riggs

that has facilitated comparative studies in Public Administration. Riggs found that most of the
western concepts and theories look “inside” the system, not “outside” -socio-economic
environment. That is why he observes that Western concepts of Public Administration have
major shortcomings for understanding the problems of developing countries iv. Hence, his
ecological approach aims at studying inter-relationships between administration and
environment.
Various scholars like Prof. John Gaus, Robert A. Dahl, and Robert A. Merton have
talked about the importance of ecology in explaining administrative behavior. But it was
Fred Riggs who made a substantive contribution in developing the ecological analysis. This
185
MPA-102/OSOU
approach has helped in understanding the reasons behind the differences in the functioning of
administration in different societies and also with in a society. Here administration is
considered as a system, which is a unit that continuously interacts with its environment
consisting of economic, social and political components and influencing each other in
multifarious ways. This is premised on the idea that our society is a larger system consisting
of various sub-systems and administrative institutions are one of the them. Fred W. Riggs
have rightly pointed out that only those studies are ‘truly’ comparative which are empirical,
nomothetic and ecologicalv. Based on ecological analysis, Riggs has created one of the most
innovative models for understanding the administration of developing countries, which is
described below.
14.5.2 FUSED-DIFFRACTED-PRISMATIC MODEL
As described earlier,Riggs have used structural-functional approach to explain these

three models of societies like, in a fused society, a single structure carries out a large number
of functions, whereas in a diffracted society, there are specialized and different structures to
carry out specific functions. The prismatic societies are those which have both the features of
fused and diffracted societies. It is said that, “the ideal models of Riggs such as fused,
prismatic and diffracted are hypothetical assumptions aimed at analyzing the pre-historic,
developing and developed societies”vi. Riggs classified societies into fused, diffracted and
prismatic on the basis of one dimension that is level of differentiation. But in his later
publication, “Prismatic Society Revisited” (1975), he realized the limitations of ‘one-
dimensional approach’ (that is differentiation) and suggests a new definition of prismatic
society based on a ‘two-dimensional approach’. vii The second dimension was integration.
Higher level of differentiation accompanied by integration, helps in bringing about
development. Based on levels of differentiation and integration, Riggs said, “if a society is
highly differentiated and well-integrated, then it is diffracted, but if it is differentiated and
poorly integrated, mal-integrated, then I call it prismatic”viii. Further, “if a society is not at all
differentiated, if there are no specialists, if everyone can do everything, then I call it a fused
system”ix.
Prismatic conditions may be present in developed countries also and no country is
fully developed. In fact, development is a relative term, with some countries developed more
than others on some scale, but on others, they have yet to make efforts. The chief features of
Riggs Models are described below:
(a) FUSED MODEL
Riggs developed his concept of fused society with reference to imperial China and the
pre-revolutionary Siamese Thailand. A fused society is characterized by particularism and
ascriptive values. It is functionally diffuse as single structure carries out all the functions. The
economy is agricultural with almost no traces of industrialization or modernization.
Production is low and barter system is the mode of exchange. The royal family, consisting of
King and his officials have complete control over administration and economy of the country.
There is distance between King and his subjects and king is not accountable to the people.
186
MPA-102/OSOU
The people on the other hand have to respect their king and not challenge his authority. As a
result, officials often become corrupt and engage in pursuit of their own interests. Family
plays a very important role in such a society and administrative system is based on the
structure of the family, which in turn helps in maintaining the system. Society is governed by
traditional values, customs and beliefs and they help in maintaining cohesion in the society.
Therefore, those who violate them are not tolerated and reprimanded. Generally, these
societies are static and lack a developed communication system.
(b) DIFFRACTED MODEL

This model was developed with reference to American society. A diffracted society is
characterized by universalism and achievement values. It is marked by functional
specialization with each structure carrying out specialized function. Society is characterized
by industrialization and modernization. Economy is marketized and it influences all other
spheres of activities. Government is accountable and responsive to the needs of the society
and people’s rights. People are also alert about their expectations from government and exert
pressure to meet their demands. Citizens generally obey laws and decisions; and policies are
made based on consensus among the people. Public servants do not have absolute powers and
there are several checks on the authority. Further there are open class structures, in the form
of associations that work on rational and scientific basis. These societies are dynamic and
have a very well-developed communication network. In a diffracted society there is high
level of differentiation and also equally needed high degree of integration in the society, as a
result the functions performed are more productive and efficient in nature.
(c) PRISMATIC MODEL

A prismatic society is marked by selectivism (which incorporates mixture of ascription and
achievement). It is defined by poly-functionalism (a combination of functional specificity and
functional diffuseness). Riggs basically has used fused and diffracted models to analyze the
prismatic characteristics of developing countries. According to Riggs, the prismatic society is
one which has achieved a certain level of differentiation with specialization of roles
necessary for dealing with modern technology, but has failed to integrate these roles x.
Various features of prismatic society are described below.
 Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity exists in substantial degree in a prismatic society. It means existence side by
side of diametrically opposite view points, systems and processes. For example, existence of
modern structures along with traditional structures create an uneven pattern of development in
the society. This heterogeneity is reflected in every sphere of society whether socio-economic,
political or cultural spheres. People like to adopt modern ideas and practices but are unable to
give up their traditional practices. There are urban areas with modern economic practices,
intellectual class, developed communication network, and western style offices, along with
pockets of rural areas with agriculture-based economy, high levels of illiteracy with village
elders exercising control over all spheres of life, lack of modern infrastructure and primitive
communication network
187
MPA-102/OSOU
This heterogeneity is visible in the administrative system of the Prismatic society also. People
enjoying administrative and political offices enjoy great power and prestige and sometimes
they misuse their power and engage in corrupt practices. In spite of equal opportunities, the
rich and the privileged enjoys higher post and privileges in the society than the common mass.
Though the government is democratically elected, but there is very less consensus on
contentious issues. In poly-communal, multi-lingual, ethnically divided society, there are
centrifugal forces that pull society in different directions, as a result there is lack of integration.
Administrative system is burdened with solving additional problems in addition to its
traditional functions.
 Formalism
Formalism refers to the gap between theory and practice, between prescriptions and their
practices, between laws and their implementation. According to Riggs, ‘formalism’ refers to
the extent “to which a discrepancy exists between norms and practices, between the
prescriptive and descriptive, between formal and effective power…and actual practices and
facts of government and society”xi. Formalism is relatively high in a prismatic society
whereas the percentage of realism is high in fused and diffracted society. Realism means
greater congruence between norms and practices. Further formalism is found to be prevalent
in all areas of life in a prismatic society. For example, public officials do not adhere to all
prescribed laws, following some technical provisions and neglecting more general terms and
objectives. Such behavioral practices accompany official corruption. Riggs argued that
formalistic behavior is caused by, “the lack of pressure toward program objectives, the
weaknesses of social power as a guide to bureaucratic performances and a great
permissiveness for arbitrary administration”xii.
Further the level of formalism depends upon the type of pressures-exogenous or endogenous-
applied for the development or change in the society. According to Riggs, if the pressure is
exogenous in nature, the level of formalism will be higher. In contrast, there is relatively
lesser formalism introduced in the society if the source is endogenous xiii.
 Overlapping
According to Riggs, overlapping refers to “the extent to which formally differentiated
structures of a diffracted society co-exists with undifferentiated structures of a fused type” xiv.
In diffracted societies, specialized structures perform different functions, so there is no
overlapping. Similarly, in a fused society, single structure performs all the functions and
hence occurs no overlapping. But in a prismatic society, new modern structures are created to
perform functions, but the older and traditional structures also continue to perform some of
these functions, resulting in confusion and irregularities. Similarly, modern values are
adopted in theory, but in practice, older values get preference. The functions of political and
administrative offices are impacted by social, economic and cultural factors. Like the
behavior of administrative personnel are determined by various non-administrative factors
like family, religion, caste etc. Some of the dimensions of overlapping in prismatic societies
are ‘nepotism’, ‘poly-communalism’, ‘the existence of clects’, ‘poly-normativism and lack of
consensus’ and ‘separation of authority from control’.
188
MPA-102/OSOU
Riggs argued that formalism, heterogeneity and overlapping exists more in prismatic societies
than western societies because latter have got a longer time span to adjust their behavior with
the evolving changes whereas in contrast, in developing or transitional societies, they had to
rapidly adjust with the changes in the society. Further in any society, the differences in the
pace of development are also related to the sources of change. Prismatic society encounters
changes from both external and internal sources. Exogenous change is the change caused by
external sources (like technical assistance programs), whereas endogenous change is
predominantly caused by internal sources (like administrative reforms). If the change is
caused by both exogenous and endogenous sources, then it is called ‘equi-genetic’ xv.
Riggs has argued that the more exogenous the process of diffraction, the more formalistic and
heterogenous its prismatic phase; the more endogenetic, the less formalistic and
heterogenousxvi. This is so because suitable alterations in behavior do not precede exogenous
changes, resulting in heterogeneity and formalism, whereas endogenous changes occur from
within, leading to better adaptation and greater consensus amongst different communities. In
their bid to bring about fast development in shortest possible time, prismatic societies adopt
externally induced changes, which often breeds conflict and tensions in the society.
14.5.3 SALA MODEL
Fred Riggs called administrative sub-system of a prismatic society as ‘Sala’ and developed a
model based on it. The administrative sub-system of a fused society is called ‘Chamber’
whereas that of a diffracted society is designated as ‘Bureau’ or ‘Office’. Each of them has
their own distinct features and characteristics. But ‘Sala’ of prismatic society displays
features of a ‘bureau’ of a diffracted society and ‘Chamber’ of a fused society. Some of the
features of Sala model are described below:
 Nepotism
Nepotism is favoritism which is displayed in matters of appointments to various
administrative positions and delivering of welfare services. Members of a particular family or
group are given preference in employment and other matters. Government officials often
misusing their positions, extend various benefits to their relatives. Though many rules and
regulations exist to guide their behavior, but they are often violated in practice. Sala officers
are often engaged in personal power aggrandizement and acquisition of material benefits
rather than working for the welfare of the people. In a diffracted society, generally family
loyalty and kinship does not influence official behavior. While in a fused society, since the
character of politico-administrative system is patrimonial in nature, so kinship or family is
predominant in such system. In a prismatic society, universalistic norms are often violated in
favor of parochial interests.
 Poly-Communalism
Poly-communalism refers to existence of multiple ethnic and religious communities in the
society. There are often conflicts between them over interests, distribution of resources etc.
and it makes very difficult for politics as well as administration to arrive at a consensus over
policy matters. Members of a certain community when occupy high position in the
189
MPA-102/OSOU
administration, give preference to the members of their own community in matters of

recruitment, promotion etc. Since different communities have different interests, they pull the
society in different directions, creating problems for the administration. To address this
problem, quota or reservation system is adopted to provide proportional representation to all
communities in the administration. But such arrangements may lead to further hostility and
compartmentalization amongst rival communities.
 Existence of ‘Clects’
‘Clects’ are typical prismatic groups making use of modern, associational methods of
organization, but retain diffuse particularistic goals of a transitional type xvii. These have
characteristics of attainment orientation, selectivism and poly-functionalism xviii. ‘Clects’
combine the features of ‘sects’ of the fused and ‘club’ of the diffracted society. Government
officials belonging to particular ‘clects’ seems to be serving interests of their respective
‘clects’ rather than the common people. Sala officers sometimes develop closer relations with
particular ‘clects’ or it starts functioning like a clect in itself. This leads to violation of
universalistic norms and also breeds corrupt practices.
 Poly-normativism and lack of Consensus

Prismatic societies are characterized by different norms and values possessed by people and
that leads to differences in the society. Due to co-existence of traditional and modern ideas,
and overlapping of ‘formal’ and ‘effective’ standard of conduct, there is lack of consensus in
the society. Though the Sala officials are appointed on the basis of high merit in competitive
examinations but in career, for their promotion and transfers, they depend largely on
ascriptive ties with their senior officials. Sala officials are selective in their following of
modern set of norms, rejecting them when it is inconvenient. Public expect the bureaucrats to
follow all rules and regulations in their work but when it comes to their own personal
interests, they break the rules or seek exemptions to it.
 Separation of Authority from Control

Power is exercised in a prismatic society in the form of authority and control, both deriving
from different sources. Explaining this Riggs says that the prismatic society consists of a
“highly centralized and concentrated authority structure overlapping a control system that is
highly localized and dispensed” xix. The control system works through poly-communalism,
clects and poly-normativism. There is considerable overlapping between authority of Sala
and control exercised by local and communal groups, which influences the functioning of
administrators and also relations between politicians and administrators.
In a prismatic society, though the political leaders enjoy constitutional powers, but in
practice, bureaucrats dominate the politico-administrative system. They play more important
role in decision-making and policy formulations, than what their formal authority suggests.
Riggs has termed it as an ‘unbalanced polity’ and in such a system, administration becomes
unresponsive to the needs of the people. Arguing further, Riggs reiterated that in such a weak
system, where leadership cannot control bureaucracy, there political parties, voluntary
associations and public opinion also fails to discharge their effective functions.
190
MPA-102/OSOU
Further the influence of political authorities can be judged from their ability to reward or
punish the administrators. When a weak leadership fails to reward the achievements of a Sala
official, it can de-motivate him from his organizational goals and lead to promoting his own
interests.
In a prismatic society, bureaucrats exercise considerable influence in the output of Sala. In

this regard, Riggs commented that, “there is an inverse relation between the administrative
output and bureaucratic power: the more powerful officials become, the less effective they
are as administrators”xx.
14.5.4 BAZAR-CANTEEN MODEL-PRISMATIC ECONOMY
Riggs has named the economy of a prismatic society as ‘Bazar-Canteen’ model. In

order to understand the meaning of this nomenclature, it is essential to understand first how
prices are determined in prismatic society. Now in a diffracted society, there is market
economy, in which forces of demand and supply determine the prices of goods. Conversely,
in a fused society, ‘arena’ factors-family, religion, caste considerations dominate and the
economy is based on barter system, where the question of price very rarely arise. In a
prismatic society, there is prevalence of both ‘market’ and ‘arena’ factors that interact with
each other and produce price indeterminacy, where it is very difficult to determine the
common price of a commodity or service.
Riggs has studied the exchange relationship between public officials and their clients
in terms of buyer-seller relationshipxxi. Further this buyer-seller relationship is not neutral, but
determined by various factors. Some of them include family relations, individual
acquaintances, bargaining power, clects memberships etc. Services are sold to such people or
communities at lower rates whereas, those who are outside this preferential category have to
pay higher prices. In other words, the economic organizations act like a ‘subsidized’ canteen,
where members of privileged groups are provided goods and services at subsidized prices.
Further there are ‘tributary’ canteen, where members of non-influential and less-privileged
communities are charged higher prices for the same services.
Price indeterminacy promotes a bazaar like atmosphere in a prismatic society

involving considerable bargaining on the amounts of financial dealings with regards to such
areas as taxes, fees, rebates and bribesxxii. Wages in a prismatic society are also indeterminate
and unequal. Like a large number of public officials may get higher salaries without doing
any work. On the other hand, people who may work are paid less. In such situations, people
who earn less are tempted to indulge in corrupt practices. These affect the norms of official
conduct of public officials and which in turn affects the economic sub-system of a prismatic
society.
191
MPA-102/OSOU
14.6 RIGGS AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Fred Riggs have provided an ecological perspective to development. He has defined

development as, “the rising levels of autonomy or discretion, in the sense of ability to choose
among alternatives…” He considered differentiation and integration as the key components
of development. The level of differentiation is related to the development of technology along
with various non-technological factors. The second component of development is integration
which means coordination between different aspects of differentiation for proper
development. Integration consists of two tenets-penetration and participation. According to
Riggs, penetration is “a government’s ability to make and carry out decisions throughout a
country”.Participation on the other hand means abiding of laws by the citizens and
involvement of people in the policies of the government. Diffraction is directly related to the
levels of differentiation and integration in the society. Later on, Riggs defined development
as “the increasing ability of human society to shape their physical, human and cultural
environments”. This ability or discretionary power of the people is more prevalent in the
developed countries than in an underdeveloped or developing countries. In some cases,
development may lead to increase in growth but not necessarily increase in the level of
discretion.
Defining development administration, Fred Riggs said, it is an “organized efforts to carry out
programs or projects thought by those involved to serve developmental objectives”. He has
underlined two aspects of development administration, first, administration of development
and second, development of administration and both are linked with each other like chicken
and egg relationships. Administration of development refers to orchestrating the efforts of
development towards certain objectives by adopting particular methods and processes.
Development of administration is strengthening the administration to better meet the goals of
development. In fact, development administration refers to efforts required to bring about
required changes in the different dimensions of environment as well as strengthening the
government’s machinery to implement programs.
14.7 ANALYSES OF RIGGS’ CONTRIBUTION
Riggs have made valuable contributions to comparative and development

administration. But still his approaches and modelshave various limitations and has been
subjected to severe criticisms by scholars. Some of them are mentioned below:
1. Riggs has borrowed many terms from physical sciences, but mere use of scientific
terms cannot make administration a science.
2. He has coined many new terms and also given new meanings to them. This has
created confusion, instead of clarifying the concepts.
3. Riggs model talks about equilibrium of the system rather than understanding the
process of social change, which is associated with development. Hence, his models
are static rather than dynamic in nature. Hahn-BeenLee concludes that the models of
192
MPA-102/OSOU
Riggs are not very useful when objective of administration is to change the system,
rather than maintenance.
4. Even though Riggs model has classified societies on the basis of their level of
development, but it is not very helpful in understanding the stages in the process of
development.
5. Riggs models are mostly based on certain assumptions and in the absence of a
measuring scale, it is very difficult to identify prismatic or diffracted societies.
6. It is western-oriented in nature as Riggs has tried to analyze the developing countries
through western parameters, by taking America as the ideal model. Prismatic societies
may have features, which very well serves their needs, is often ignored. Further, it
does not give adequate emphasis to prismatic features, in a diffracted society.
7. Formalism is taken as a negative concept, whereas sometimes people can benefit if
rules and regulations are not strictly followed. To say that formalism is dysfunctional
represents a “non-ecological” viewpoint.
8. This approach has focused on how environmental factors impacts administration but
does not give sufficient attention to the study of administration itself or how it
produces changes in the environment. It is alleged that Riggs has made administration
a dependent variable.
9. Mere three-fold classification of society is not enough, because there can be various
levels of say a prismatic society like high, middle or low, but there is no way to
measure them.
10. Riggs has not explained how differentiation and integration can be measured which is
needed to bring forth development.
11. Similarly, Riggs has highlighted the negative aspects of overlapping, but in certain
situations, it can produce healthy competition among various sub-systems and also
generate new ideas.
12. Further, Riggs has not highlighted some of the unique and positive characteristics of
Prismatic societies which are not only beneficial but can even be adopted by
diffracted societies.
Hence, it can be concluded that despite all criticisms, Riggs’ ecological approach and
Sala model are indispensable for studies in comparative and development administration. It
has helped in understanding the functioning of administration from environmental and
developmental perspective. Through inter-disciplinary approach, it has helped in
understanding the different dimensions of administration in developing countries. There is no
doubt that Riggs is one of the most innovative theory builders in Public Administration.
Chapman has rightly remarked that Riggs approach and models may be considered as
sophisticated tools for describing and diagnosing administrative situations.
14.8 KEY CONCEPTS
1. Nomothetic-Term coined by Riggs, which aims at building generalizations based on

intense comparative analysis.
193
MPA-102/OSOU
2. Empirical- It is based on rigorous methods such as data collection, field experiments,

laboratory studies etc.
3. Sala – It is Spanish word that stands for government offices, living room, hall etc.
Riggs has used this word for bureaucracy in prismatic societies.
4. Particularism- Exclusive attachment or devotion to one’s own particular interests,
group, party or nation.
5. Selectivism-To discriminate between communities in applying otherwise
universalistic norms.
6. Normativism-The advocacy of the primacy or the desirability of social norms.
14.9 ACTIVITIES
1. Take any one problem in present administration and analyze how Fred Riggs’
Approach can be helpful in understanding that issue.
2. Read any book by Riggs and write a review of it in 500-700 words.
3. Visit any local administrative office in your city and find out which ecological
factors influences its working.
14.10REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS
 Morroe Berger, Bureaucracy and Society in Modern Egypt, Princeton University

Press, Princeton,1957
Society, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1964
 Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration, Associated Publishing House,
New Delhi, 2008
 R.K. Sapru, Theories of Administration, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1996
 T.N. Chaturvedi, Comparative Public Administration, Research Publications, Jaipur,
1999
 D. Ravindra Prasad, V.S.Prasad, P.Satyanarayana, Y. Pardhasaradhi (eds.),
Administrative Thinkers, Sterling Publishers, Greater Noida, 3ed. 2017
 Fred W.Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1961 ( issued under the auspices of The Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi)
 Dr. Vijay Agrawal, Administrative Thinkers, Teenage Publishers, New Delhi, 2021
 Rakesh Hooja& Ramesh K.Arora (eds.), Administrative Theories, Rawat Publishers,
Jaipur, 2020
 Fred. W.Riggs, Thailand: The Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity, East-West
Center Press, Honolulu, 1966
 Fred.W.Riggs, Prismatic Society Revisited, General Learning Press, Indiana
University, 1973.
 Dr. Vijay Agrawal, Administrative Thinkers, Teenage Publishers, New Delhi, 2021,
p.223-224
194
MPA-102/OSOU
 Refer Fred W. Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House,
New Delhi, 1961 (issued under the auspices of The Indian Institute of Public
Administration, New Delhi), p.25
Administrative Thinkers, Sterling Publishers, Greater Noida, 3ed. 2017, p. 213
Society, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1964, p.99 as quoted in R.K.Sapru, Theories
of Administration, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1996, p,112
 Fred W.Riggs, “ Trends in the Comparative Study of Public Administration”,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, XXVIII, 1962, P.15 as quoted in
Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration, Associated Publishing House,
New Delhi, 2008, p.106
Administrative Thinkers, Sterling Publishers, Greater Noida, 3ed. 2017, p.214
 R.K. Sapru, Theories of Administration, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1996,
p.120
 Fred W.Riggs and Daya Krishna, Development Debate, Printwell Publishers, Jaipur,
1987,p.35
 Ibid., p.34
 As quoted in R.K. Sapru, Theories of Administration, S. Chand & Company Ltd.,
 Fred W. Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1961, p.91-92 as quoted in R.K. Sapru, Theories of Administration, S. Chand &
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1996, p.116
 As quoted in Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public Administration, Associated
Publishing House, New Delhi, 2008, p.111
 R.K. Sapru, Theories of Administration, S. Chand & Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1996,
p.116
 Fred W. Riggs, “ The ‘Sala’ Model: An Ecological approach to the study of
Comparative Public Administration”, Philippine Journal of Public Administration,
Vol.VI, 1962, p.6 as quoted in R.K. Sapru, Theories of Administration, S. Chand &
Company Ltd., New Delhi, 1996, p.117
New Delhi, 2008, p.117 (paraphrased)
 Fred W. Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House,
Bombay, 1961, p.143 as quoted in Ramesh K. Arora, Comparative Public
Administration, Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, 2008, p. 117
 Fred W. Riggs, The Ecology of Public Administration, Asia Publishing House, New
Delhi, 1961, p.126
195
MPA-102/OSOU
 Fred W. Riggs, “The ‘Sala’ Model: An Ecological approach to the study of

Comparative Public Administration”, Philippine Journal of Public Administration,
Vol.VI, 1962, p. 14
Society, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1964, p.285, as quoted in Ramesh K. Arora,
Comparative Public Administration, Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, 2008,
p.116
 Ibid., p.114
 Fred Riggs, “The idea of Development Administration”, in Edward Weidner (ed.)
Development Administration in Asia, Duke University Press, Durham, 1970, p.27
 Riggs &Daya Krishna, Development Debate, Printwell Publishers, Jaipur, 1987, p.38
 Riggs, “The context of development administration”, in Riggs (ed.), The frontiers of

Development Administration, Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1970, p.74
 Ibid., p.120
 Hahn-BeenLee, “From Ecology to time”, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, Vol.XXXIII, No.2, 1967, pp.1-13
 T.N. Chaturvedi, Comparative Public Administration, Research Publications, Jaipur,
1999, p.89
 Richard A.Chapman, “ A Prismatic theory in Public Administration: A review of
theories of F.W.Riggs”, Public Administration, Vol.44, Winter, 1966, p.427
196
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-15: RENSIS LIKERT

15.1 Introduction
15.2 About Rensis Likert
15.3 Notable Contributions by Likert
15.4 Social survey and Likerts’ scale
15.5 Supervisory / Leadership Style
15.6 Principle of Supportive Relationship
15.7 Linking Pin Model
15.8 Management Systems 1-4
15.9 Organisational Management
15.10 New ways of Managing Conflicts
15.11 Critical Evaluations of Likert’s Ideas
15.12 Conclusion
15.13 Activities
15.14 Reference sand Further Readings
After going through this Unit, you should be able to:
 Know about Rensis Likert and his career

 Recognize major Contributions by Likert
 Know the social survey and use of Likerts’ scale
 Understand different Supervisory / Leadership Style
 Conversant with Principle Of Supportive Relationship
 Know the relevance of Linking Pin Model
 Understand Management Systems 1-4 and its applications
15.1 INTRODUCTION
The human relations school in administrative theory considers that organizational

effectiveness depends on the quality of relationships among the people and managing the
interpersonal competence among them to develop collaborative efforts at all levels of the
organization for success.The human resource, behavior and interpersonal relations are
regarded as important aspect of organizational effectiveness. This school expands the scope
of behavioral studies including individual, group and organization culture and development.
Several psychologist and sociologists have contributed to the behavioral theory in
organization focusing on human behavior like Abraham Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor, Chris
Argysis, Blake & Mouton and Rensis Likert etc. In this unit we review briefly the
contribution of Rensis Likert towards administration and management. Rensis Likert,
American Organisational Psychologist and Educator, born August 5, 1903is well-known for
197
MPA-102/OSOU
his notable contribution to the Human Relations Movement in Public Administration. Likert
has training in engineering sciences and social sciences as well. He is very much known to
have given the famous “Likert Scale”. The famous American social scientist who developed
scales for attitude measurement and introduced the concept of participative management.
Public Administration literature describes Rensis Likert as a ‘Creator of Organizations’(Kish
1982). His contribution to organizational theory that his holistic understanding of
administrative and management problems in many ways surpass the other contemporary
Public Administration scholars of today. Likert’s knowledge in both the social science
subject psychology and sociology along with science subject engineering contributed
important inputs towards understanding of organizations. Likert’sleanings are in favour of
human behavior in organizations helped him to devise participatory management and
democratize organizations.
15.2 ABOUT LIKERT (5 August 1903–3 September 1981)
Likert was born in Wyoming USA in 1903. He completed his degree in civil
engineering from the University of Michigan in 1922. During his engineering studies he
realized that there were many more unanswered questions in science. He inclined towards
social and organizational issues related to governance rather than issues related to
engineering. As he desired to work for people, he studied sociology and graduated as a
sociologist in 1926. He moved to the Union Theological Seminary and to the Department of
Psychology at the Columbia University interested in new psychology. Many of his views
converged in his publication titled, ‘A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes’ in 1932.
He completed his Ph.D in 1932 from the Columbia University. Likert initiated the Institute of
Social Research (ISR) in the University of Michigan. This institute became a hub for training
social scientists in research methodology and techniques of social surveys. Likert’s
contribution to social analysis and to the development of social statistics has been a
tremendously effective analytical tool in the US public policy. He served as a Director of the
US Department of Agriculture in 1939.After war service as Director of the Moral Division of
the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, he established the Survey Research Center at
the University of Michigan in 1946.In 1950s he entered programme analysis activities and
associated with the American Statistical Association. He became the association President in
1959. In the year 1970, Likert retired from the University of Michigan as emeritus director of
ISR and Professor of Psychology and Sociology. Likert and his associates carried out
extensive research on management practice in American business and government. The study
was conducted by a team of forty researchers and over a period of twenty years at the
expense of fifteen dollars. His innovative survey techniques studying farmer’s responses
through the sharing of their experiences and reactions to various types of agricultural
programs which were implemented by the US Department of Agriculture and the Division of
Programme Surveys. His relevant contribution to the said department impressed the United
States Government. Likert was invited to design an independent statistical unit monitoring
the activities of programme agencies. The ‘Survey Techniques’ developed by RensisLikert
and created an accountability framework for implementing agencies that helped the different
198
MPA-102/OSOU
departments to formulate rational cost-effective policies. Specifically he is known for his

contribution to the organization theory. Likert was focusing on the imperatives of an
organization structure for evolving new techniques of participatory management and
democratic leadership. His contribution to a nuts and bolts kind of description of
administrative and management issues which increasingly perceived organizational structures
as an engineering concerns.
15.3 NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
Likert conducted on human behavior with organization in the industrial situation. He

examined different type of organization, management and leadership styles. He asserts that to
achieve maximum profitability and high productivity an organization must make optimum
use of the human resource. Likert’s main focus was on managing the human beings in
organizations because of sensitivity towards their behavioral and attitudinal aspect. He
encourages empirical investigations into human nature within an organization that can
increase productivity as well as employees’ loyalty towards organization. Likert’s analysis of
the System 1 to the System 4 organizations is a movement towards greater freedom,
democracy and participatory decision making. Here the notable concepts which are
developed through research and survey by Likert are discussed.
Famous Books by Likert;
 Liker’s BooksNew Ways of Managing Conflict 1976

 (with Jane Gibson Likert)Human organization : its management and value (1967)
 New patterns of management (1961)
Likert’s main contributions and the most influential work to Public Administration are stated
below:
I. Social Surveys andLikert Scale

II. Supervisory / Leadership Style
III. Principle of Supportive Relationship
IV. Linking Pin Model
V. Management Systems 1-4
VI. New ways of Managing Conflicts
15.4 SOCIAL SURVEYS AND LIKERT SCALE
Likert initiated that measuring social behavior and attitudes was the most difficult task
of social surveys. In his monograph, ‘A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes’(1932-
33) he found that ‘statistical difficulties which are encountered when everyday aspects of
social behavior, ordinarily handled as qualitative affairs , are treated from a mathematical
point of view’. Besides the cultural specificity of survey techniques, Likert also established
199
MPA-102/OSOU
that an individual opinion may differ from the opinion supported by a group1. ‘Likert’s main
contribution has been the manner in which his five point scale measured the opinion between
the range of “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”(Bertram,2007). Likert developed the
Likert scale in 1932, and used it to identify the extent of a person’s beliefs, attitudes, or
feelings towards some objects. This was a psychometric response scale used in questionnaires
and was used to measure a single trait only. Likert scale has been a popular subject in social
surveys and has been repeatedly published in the series ‘Classic Contributions to Social
Psychology ‘. It has also been reproduced in the Likert and Murphy’s Public Opinion and the
Individual (1938). The Scale has however not addressed many problems of cross-cultural
nature and has been accused of being culturally biased especially in some health surveys
involving Central American and Vietnamese refugee population. (Flaskerud, 1988:185-186).
Likert made some path breaking social surveys of government programmes and strategic
decisions to highlight their impact upon populations. The agricultural surveys made by him
catapulted Likert’s office to a full fledged general sample survey organization. The advancing
study of the behavior and attitudes developed some reliable tools of ‘multistage probability
area sampling methods’, ‘fixed question with open ended answers’ and many evaluation
techniques which could study decisions related to war and peace especially the prediction
techniques for the buying of war bonds between 1941- 1945.He received the Medal of
Freedom in 1946 for his leadership to a research team which studied the effect of constant
bombing of cities on the morale of the civilian populations of Germany and Japan. Following
this Likert left Washington to formally establish the Survey Research Centre at the University
of Michigan. It was initially a struggle with space and staff till it got a university basement
and some PhD students to help it grow. The Likert scale is an ordered scale with five or seven
alternative options from which respondents choose one option that best supports with their
view. It is used to measure respondents' attitudes in relation to their choice by asking the
extent to which they agree or disagree with a particular given question or statement to get
conclusion in social survey. This scale is one type of psychometric response scale in which
responders specify their level of agreement to a given statement typically it is in five points:
(1) Strongly disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither agree nor disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly
agree. Likert scale is famously applied as one of the most fundamental and frequently used
psychometric tools in the field of social sciences research survey to specify the attitude study
on individuals and manage accordingly the organization administration towards better
productivity and success.
15.5 SUPERVISORY/LEADERSHIP STYLE
Likert and his associates recognized the organizational climate as important factor for
better performance. They explored that some managers get better results than others. What do
effective managers do that dissipative managers do not? How can we measure effectiveness
of manager? What criteria exist or can be developed to measure results? Likert’s contribution
to supervisory/leadership studies has significance during the 2nd world war considered a
study of leadership related ‘Traits’ to know world leaders. Contrast to Ohio research study on
leadership called the Leaders Behaviour Description Questinnaire (LBDQ), Likert headed
200
MPA-102/OSOU
Michigan University’s research team on leadership studies. Likert identified two styles of
leadership as "job centered" and "employee-centered." A job-centered leader is similar to the
‘initiating structure’ of Ohio School studies which believes that employees are just a means to
an end. As part of Human Relations Movement, Likert concluded like Elton Mayo that a
close supervision of employees earns better results. The other ‘employee centered’ leadership
is similar to ‘consideration’ leadership that increases relationships, interaction and mutual
understanding between the worker and the employer. It was found that both structures were
important as ‘job centred’ leaders were admired by their supervisors as much as the
‘employee centred’ were liked by the workers. Likert’s study is much admired till today as it
suggested an employee orientation coupled with general supervision improved productivity.
Likert classifies supervisors/leaders style of managing people in an organization into two
categories:
a) Job Oriented Supervisor– this type of supervisors ensure performance of assigned

tasks and maintenance of prescribed stands. The characteristics of this type of
supervisors are:
 They put heavy pressure to get work done.

 They have less confidence in the subordinates.
 They exercise very close and detailed supervision.
 They allow little freedom to subordinates.
 They are punitive and critical when mistakes occur.
b) Employee Oriented Supervisor– This type of supervisors concerned with the human
aspects of their subordinates and effective teambuilding for high performance towards
work. The characteristics of this type of supervisors are as follows:
 They put little pressure on subordinates.

 They earn the confidence and trust of subordinates.
 They increase motivation of subordinates.
 They encourage them to achieve high performance.
 They exercise general supervision not the detailed one.
 They allow subordinates to plan their own pace of work.
 They help subordinates when mistakes and problems occur.
Likert tried to know whether the high and low performing managers’ characteristics are
based on the work environment of an organization or not. He identified the effective
supervision as an adaptive and relative process which relates with background, values,
expectation and interpersonal skills between subordinates and superiors. The situation is
important in this regard. His concept of leadership comes close to that of Mary Parker
Follett.
201
MPA-102/OSOU
15.6 PRINCIPLE OF SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIP
Likert suggested his principle of supportive relationships as an organising concept

which is based on his assessment of managers of high performance. He considers an
interaction-influence system to maximise skills, resources and motivation of people at
different level of an organisation. According to Likert, an organisation operating on an ideal
interaction-influence system has following characteristics.
 Employees’ personal values, need and goal reflected in the workgroups and
organisation.
 Pressures for high performance will come from the employees themselves.
 Performance of task will come not from the traditional hierarchies of the
organisations.
 Proper communication networks will operate throughout the organization.
 The organisational decisions and actions will be affected by every member of the
organisation.
 Co-operation, motivation will ensure that employees throughout the organisation exert
their influence through their ideas on the decisions made in the organisation
15.7 LINKING PIN MODEL
Traditionally the organisations are hierarchical in nature. The system of one to one
interaction do not promote the interactioninfluence system in an organisation. To eradicate
this difficult Likert advises the "Linking Pin Model". This Linking Pin Model presented as an
alternative to traditional hierarchical structure in traditional organisations by Likert Each
individual has dual roles in two overlapping groups in this scheme of structuring
organisation. Each and every member of an organisation is considered as a member of higher
level group and a leader of lower level group. It is different from the traditional top-down
management of the classical organisations. This model focuses group functions and
organizational processesas more important than the individual roles. The model or
organizational structure conceived by Likert is expected to remove the hurdles, found in
traditional hierarchies and facilitate growth of interaction-influence system. The salient
feature of his model is that each individual in organization has twin roles which is in two
overlapping groups. He illustrates with example as follows:
a) Subordinate serving as linking pin for horizontal coordination,

b) Vertical overlapping linkages of line and staff departments,
c) Vertical overlapping linkages of product departments,
d) Multiple overlapping group structures with horizontal as well as vertical linkages.
Likertstressed process within functional group to be distinguished from monotonous
superfluous multiplication of committees as adjuncts to staff line organization. No
overlapping workgroups should exist than are necessary to perform linking process.
202
MPA-102/OSOU
Multiple linkages provide additional channels to share information and influence and
become link pins to hold the organization together.
15.8 MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 1-4
The most significant contribution of made by Likert was to conceptualize different

systems of management style. The four management system are arrayed along with the two
important dimensions: first the type of authority or control an organization exercises over its
members is represented, the second dimension relates to the operating characteristics of the
organization and the motivational forces used to control and coordinate the activity of the
people in the system and the kinds of attitudinal responses evoked from them. The operating
characteristicss include leadership, motivation, communication, interaction, influence,
decision making, goal setting, goal performance and control processes analysed. Likert
identifies four distinct types of management system styles which are linked with four types of
leadership. In his book The Human Organization: Its Management and Value (1967,New
York: McGraw Hill).
Likert has studied four types of leadership. (a) Exploitative and authoritative: The
leader imposes top down decisions upon subordinates and fear of authority is considered to
be the motivating force to get work done.This traditional characteristic of bureaucracy
created inactivity between the administrator and the subordinate. (b) Benevolent
authoritative: This is like the previous one where decisions are top down management
oriented except that fear of authority is created not through disciplinary measures but through
rewards which makes team work almost impossible. (c) Consultative: This type of leadership
focuses that management consults subordinates and adopts their ideas but this does not
generate a sense of belongingness for that subordinates do not feel responsible to achieve
organization’s goals.(d) Participative: This is a superior form of leadership because the leader
works with subordinates as a team which is sufficiently motivated to achieve organizational
goals. This book has much to offer to leadership research especially on participative
management in organizations. Thus his work is an important contribution to organizational
theory, it may not have answers to many questions which emerge in diagnosing the
operations of managerial leadership.Themanagement systems are as follows:
I. Management System 1: Exploitative – Authoritative

II. Management System 2: Benevolent – Authoritative
III. Management System 3: Consultative
IV. Management System 4: Participative
203
MPA-102/OSOU
Management System 1 • Authoritative or Exploitative

In this type of management system the job of employees/subordinates is to abide by the
decisions made by managers and others with a higher status in the organization. The
subordinates do not participate in the decision making. The organization's sole concern
is completion of work. Fear and threats may be used to insure completion. No teamwork
is involved. Thus an exploitative - authoritative management system would show a steep
hierarchical structure, close supervision, one to one relations, lot of pressure for high
performance and low motivation among the employees. The features of this management
style are:
• Autocratic nature
• Against Informal Organisation
• Limited Decision making
• Fear, threats and punishment for employee
• Ideal Conditionto work
Management System 2 • Benevolent Authoritative
Just as in an exploitive authoritative system, decisions are made at the top of the
organisation. However, employees are motivated through rewards rather than fear and
threats. Information may flow from subordinates to managers, but it is restricted to
“what management want to hear”.System 2 remains to be authoritative like System 1 but
its exploitative character is replaced by the benevolence of the management towards its
members. The features of this management style are:
• Decision making is delegated with closed policy control at the top.
• Subordinate do not feel free to discuss their job related issue with the superior.
• Informal organisationdevelops but it does not generally resists the goal of formal
organisation
204
MPA-102/OSOU
Management System 3 • Consultative Democratic

Consultative system type of management system is that the subordinates are motivated
by rewards and their involvement in decision-making process. Management will
constructively use subordinates' ideas and opinions. Their involvement is incomplete and
major decisions are still made by senior management. More and more information flows
from subordinates to management, although it is incomplete.In consultative management
style of System 3 broad decisions are taken in which some powers are delegated to the
middle level management also. The features of this management system are:
• Managers do not believe completely on their subordinate.
• Employees are allowed to make some specific decisions.
• Command is in both upward and downward direction.
• Subordinate somewhat feels free to discuss their job related issues with superior.
• Informal organisation will help formal organization.
Management System 4 • Participative Democratic

Management have complete confidence in their subordinates/employees. Communication
is free, and subordinates are fully involved in decision making. Subordinates comfortably
express opinions and engage in teamwork. Teams are linked together by common
members. Likert calls people in more than one group “linking pins”. Employees
throughout the organisation feel responsible for achieving the organisation’s objectives.
This responsibility is motivational, especially as subordinates are offered economic
rewards for achieving organisational goals, which they have participated in
setting.However the System 4 of participative style will show crossfunctional linkages,
tendency for group relations, joint decision making and lateral communication besides
the top - down communication etc.The features of this management style are:
• Democratic way of management
• Complete faith on their employee
• Decision making is highly decentralized
• High degree of Communication and cooperation.
• Formal organisation= Information organisation
• (Ideal condition) Autocracy
Though Likert prefers System 4 to any other management system still he doesn't favour
abruptly transplanting the management style of one system in the other system. The skills
of the members of the organisation as well those of its leaders suit a particular system. If
one system is forced on a group of individuals not suited for it then the effectiveness of
the whole system would decline. This is the reason Likert pleads for only gradual change
from System 1 to System 4 and not an abrupt change.
15.9 ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
At a later stage in his life Likert became more concerned about the problems of
organizational management. His expressed his ideas into three books, namely, New Patterns
of Management (1961), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value (1967), and the
205
MPA-102/OSOU
third book was written in collaboration with his wife, New Ways of Managing Conflict
(1976).He also suggested the need for the ideas on organizational management to move into
consulting practice and for doing it he started another organization called, Rensis Likert
Associates. This suggests that his desire to make organizations workable and also acceptable
requires an intensively participative management system that goes beyond the Weber’s steel
frame structure. Likert analyzed four basic characteristics of organizations as it grows
towards a participative organizational management systems. He referred to‘System1’which
was designed upon an exploitativeauthoritative organizational system of bureaucratic
structures. From here the organizational research navigated through psychological analysis
techniques used by Likert to ‘System2’ and ‘System3’ of benevolent authoritative system to
consultative systems of organizations to finally evolve into ‘System4’ of participatory
management of organizations. ‘System4’ is a futuristic expression used by Likert. Sometimes
it is also referred to as a ‘Code’ which is the mature form of organization achieved through
modern interdisciplinary social survey research based upon participant observation
techniques.
15.10 NEW WAYS OF MANAGING CONFLICTS
To evolve new pattern of management based on cooperative and supportive

relationships, Likertaslo focuses on new ways of managing conflict. In capitalist mode of
production conflict is inherent in management worker relations. It exists in several forms.
Likert himself refers to the nature of this conflict when he states ‘there is ample evidence in
the mass media and elsewhere that bitter, unresolved conflict is widespread and increasing in
frequency. It occurs at all levels of society among nations and within nations, among
organisations and within organisations.Likert defines the concept of conflict as the active
striving for one’s own preferredoutcome, which if attained preludes the attainment by others
of their own preferred outcomes, thereby producing hostility’. He differentiate two kinds of
conflict. Substantive conflict is rooted in the substance of the task. Affective conflict is
derived from the emotional, affective aspects of interpersonal relations. Likert considers how
to handle substantive conflict even in situations where the presence of affective conflict
makes this task more difficult. In conflict situations, leadership migrates to the aggressive,
relegating the emotionally mature to the background.
15.11 CRITICAL EVALUATIONS OF LIKERT’S IDEAS
 Likert's linking pin model is criticized for drawing the triangles around the
hierarchical structuresand slowing down process of decision making.
 Likert has not settled on how to management system oforganisations from System 1
to System 4.
 It is also observed that management often reverts back to the System 1 & 2 techniques
during crisis. If System 4 is very much effective then why it is not preferred during the
time of emergency.
 The Organisations exist in anecosystem. If the society itself is hierarchial and
206
MPA-102/OSOU
authoritarian culture exists in it then it should not be expected that the organisations
would follow System 4 concept.
 His ideas de-emphasise status, power, position, hierarchy and de-personalize problem
solving aspect in an organisation.
15.12 CONCLUSION
Despite criticism, Likert pins his faith in system -4 leadership and interaction – influence
networks to diffuse conflict situations and replace win-lose strategies of conflict
resolution by win-win strategies, leaving no one frustrated. Rensis Likert was
predominantly a famous social scientist of practical solutions and not a theory builder.
He was an analyst of social and business situations strived to pull different organizations
out of authoritarianism and unnatural control of human feelings. Likert worked for
creating self-confidence, loyalty, and inventiveness in workers and managers to achieve
in a more cooperative, collaborative and friendly way. He is known to be a theorist who
didn’t intend to give one but insightful understanding of human behavior, group
dynamics and relationships. Likert’s most important contribution to management thought
and practice is his systematic analysis of good management practices and extending their
frontiers of knowledge and application putting down the empirical foundations for the
development of management science in the current century.
15.13 ACTIVITIES
Write Short Notes
a) Rensis Likert and his ideas

b) The Linking pin model by Likert
c) The Management system style 1
d) The Management system style 2
e) The Management system style 3
f) The Management system style 4
g) The Employee oriented supervisors
Long Questions
1) Briefly write aboutLikert and his contributions in Public Administration.

2) Describe the supervisory style suggested by Likert and its relevance in administration.
3) Discuss the linking pin model developed by Likert for effective administration.
4) Write the difference between job oriented and employee oriented supervisors.
5) Critically analyze the concept of management system 1-4 for organization
management.
6) Explain the new ways of managing conflict developed by Likert in organisations.
7) Illustrate the principle of supportive relationships and its significance in
207
MPA-102/OSOU
administration contributed by Likert.
15.14 REFERENCE AND FURTHER READINGS
 Ankur Joshi, Kale, (2015)Likert Scale: Explored and Explained, Current Journal of
Applied Science and Technology 7(4), 396-40, DOI:10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975;
 Amita Singh,(2017), Unforgettable RensisLikert, researchgate.net/publicatyions;
320149379;
 Bain, R., (1930), Theory and measurement of attitudes,opinion. Psychol. 27, 357-379;
 Flaskerud, Jacquelyn H (1988) Is the Likert scale format culturally biased? Nursing
Research,Vol 37(3), May-Jun, 185-186, December 2013;
 Katz, D., Allport, F. H. and Jenness, M. B. (1931) Students' attitudes; a report of the
Syracuse University Reaction Study. Syracuse.Craftsman Press;
 Likert, Rensis (1932)‘A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes’, Volume
22,No. 140 of Archives of Psychology,New York;
 Likert, Rensis (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value , New
York: McGraw Hill;
 Likert, Rensis., Murphy,Gardner., (1938) Public Opinion and the Individual , London:
Harper and Brothers;
 Manoj Dixit; Al - Public Administration III, 1995;
 Maheshwari, S.R. - Administrative Thinkers IV, 1997;
 Prasad & Prasad - Administrative Thinkers, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi,
ISBN - 8120709619, Low Price Edition, pp-218-233;
 Thurstone, L(1929), Theory of attitude measurement. Psychol. Rev. 36,222-24 12 ;
 Vetter, G. B. (1930), The measurement of social and political attitudes and the related
personality factors. J. Abn. &Soc. , 49-89;
 Warwick, Donald P.(1975) A Theory of Public Bureaucracy,Politics, Personality and
the Public Organization in a State Department, USA: Harvard University Press;
208
MPA-102/OSOU
UNIT-16: DWIGHT WALDO

Structure:
16.1 Introduction
16.2 About Dwight Waldo: Life and Work
16.3Contributions to Public Administration
16.4 Public Administration History
16.5 Classical Approach
16.6 Politics and Administration
16.7 Organization Theory
16.8 Comparative Public Administration
16.9 New Public Administration
16.10 Public Administration as Profession
16.11 Future of Public Administration
16.12 Conclusion
16.13 Activities
16.14References and Further Readings
16.0 LEARNINGOUTCOMES
After going through this Unit, you should be able to:
 know about Dwight Waldo and his career

 recognize major contributions by Waldo
 know Waldo’s idea on public administration
 understand the politics and administration and his view
 know the relevance of classical approach and organisation theory
 state about the comparative public administration
 understand the concept of new public administration
 conversant with public administration as a profession
209
MPA-102/OSOU
16.1 INTRODUCTION
Public administration as a discipline has come into a period of extensive interchange

and exploration in the broad subject area of administration. Dwight Waldo, closely associated
with the discipline of public administration a leading ‘philosopher’ of public administration.
His contribution to the public administration has its significance. Waldo had influence on the
teaching methodology and theory of public administration during the twentieth century.
16.2 ABOUT DWIGHT WALDO: LIFE AND WORK
Clifford Dwight Waldo (1913-2000) was born in DeWitt, Nebraska. Waldo, after
school education, joined Wesleyan College in Peru, Nebraska and received B.A in the year
1935. He looked for a job as a teacher but got the job of reading papers at the University of
Nebraska - Lincoln and enrolled in the master’s program in political science. After receiving a
master’s degree in political science (1937) from the University of Nebraska, he joined as a
Cowles Fellow at Yale University. After the Second World War, Waldo joined the University
of California at Berkeley as an Assistant Professor. Waldo helped to establish a Graduate
School of Public Affairs and contributed to the University Bureau of Public Administration to
that of the Institute of Governmental Studies and served as the Director from 1958-1967. In
1979, he retired as Professor emeritus from Syracuse. He spent two years at the Woodrow
Wilson International Centre for Scholars of the Smithsonian Institute. Waldo was also
associated with the American Society for Public Administration and its Comparative
Administration Group and served on the Society’s Council (1963-1966) and the Executive
Committee of the American Political Science Association (1957-60) and became its vice-
president in 1961. Waldo served as president of the National Association of Schools of Public
Affairs and Administration (1977-78). He was editorial board member of the American
Political Science Review (1959-1963) and Public Administration Review (1958-66) and as
Editor-in-Chief (1966-77). He remained professionally active of many prestigious associations
national and international till his death on 27th October 2000 at the age of 87. Waldo wrote
many books, monographs and articles.
Hismajor publications are:
 Administrative State (1948)
 The Study of Public Administration (1955),
210
MPA-102/OSOU
 The Novelist on Organisation and Administration (1968),

 Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence (1971),
 Democracy, Bureaucracy and Hypocrisy (1977),
 The Enterprise of Public Administration (1980),
 Bureaucracy and Democracy-A Strained Relationship (unpublished manuscript with
Frank Marini,1999).
16.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dwight Waldo was an ardent proponent of the idea of “integrating administration with
civilization,” and “not just with its economy, its government and its legal system but with the
entire cultural complex” (Waldo, 1994). Such comprehensive integration, according to Waldo,
was made necessary by a widely accepted interpretation of the contemporary world as the “Era
of Organization” (Waldo,1968) where organization is understood in terms of “individuals
whose base in “natural” societies (tribal or traditional) has been dissolved and whose family
structure has been eroded, leaving them more or less mobile, undifferentiated, normless and
restless; struggling with problems of subsistence, identity, meaning and direction, which the
new organizations in some senses solve, but in some senses fail to solve, and in some senses
accentuate” (Waldo, 1968).Dwight Waldo, a key influence in public administration from the
period of 1940s to 1970s. Waldo's major contributions to public administration, including his
impact on pedagogy, case methodology and the relationship of public administration to
political science are very influential for the educationist and the researchers. Waldo in his book
1948 challenged the idea that public administration is value-neutral, performed in a
dispassionate, almost in mechanical way. He discussed that public servants should become
active, informed, politically savvy agents of change, working to protect due process and public
access to government. Waldo was the first academic to undertake a systematic study of literary
and historical treatments of administration, summarized in Perspectives on Administration
(1956) and The Novelist on Organization and Administration (1968). Having narrowed his
focus to the so-called “administrative novels,” Waldo argued that, while not being able to
substitute for the professional and scientific literature, they, nevertheless, could complement
and expand our knowledge about administration and the world of organization by helping
“restore what the professional-scientific literature necessarily omits or slights: the concrete, the
211
MPA-102/OSOU
sensual, the emotional, the subjective, the valuational” (Waldo, 1968) everything that gives,
according to Mort Kroll, the “third dimension” to public administration.
According to Waldo ‘Administration is a type of co-operative human effort that has a high
degree of rationality;
Waldo represents his perspective on public administration. The administration as
politics approach which was emerged in the year1940s. His writings are the critique to the
behavioral approach. Waldo strongly disagrees that politics and policy considerations can be
excluded from administration. So administration is inevitably both an art and science and
possibly more as an art than a science. As administration cannot be separated from politics,
Waldo debates that the public administration is different from the private administration
particularly by the political environment in which the public administrator
operatesorganization administration. According to him the objective should not be to keep
administrators out of public policy and political matters, but to encourage cooperation between
the political and administrative domains to discover ways of benefit from the potential
contributions of administrative officials.
Waldo gave four different ideas. First, there is an intrinsic tension between democracy
and bureaucracy that obliges career public servants to protect democratic principles. Second,
the politics/administration dichotomy is false. Public servants hold political positions that
require more than merely implementing policy set by elected officials. Third, public servants
must negotiate efficiencies demanded by the scientific management movement with due
process and public access to government. Final, government cannot be run like a business. As
per the constitution and other democratic imperatives, managing a government organization is
more challenging than a private organization. Waldo denied the possibility of constructing a
science of public administration, doubted the existence of ‘principles’ of administration,
questioned the unified theory of organization.
16.4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION HISTORY
Dwight Waldo defined ‘Public administration is the art and science of management as
applied to the affairs of the state’. Several scholars gathered at Minnowbrook Conference -1 in
1968 and they wanted public administration to be a separate discipline, He further observes
‘the process of public administration consists of the actions involved in affecting the intent or
desire of a government. It is the continuously active, business part of a government, concerned
with carrying out the law as made by legislative bodies ad interpreted by the courts, through
212
MPA-102/OSOU
the process of the organization and management. The field of study of public administration
focuses upon public administration as a process’. To him public administration as a field and
practice which has its origin in the human civilization. Administration and civilization have
coexisted as like as two side of one coin which is inseparable and important for the human
progress. Both help each other in societal setting and have contributed to the development of
each other. There is a single dominant theme in Waldo’s work, it is probably the importance to
history or as he puts it, a strong sense that “what is past in prologue.” Waldo believes that there
is much to be learned from history and he disapproves that much of the public administration
literature is anti-historical in nature. Waldo states that history does indeed repeat itself, though
in different keys and with endless variations of its theme and that ignoring past denies an
important source of insights, hypotheses and scientific conclusions. Waldo considers
government and administration to be an artificially shaper in a state of nature that would be
peaceful and prosperous. Government is no more a creation than markets or private enterprise
and the sustaining, nurturing and creative role of government has been ignored. Waldo
acknowledges that government is always marginally oppressive and sometimes there are
things that government cannot do or can do only.
The observation made by Waldo regarding the similarities between public and private
administration , ‘ the generalizations which distinguish public administration from private
administration by special care for equality of treatment, legal authorization of, and
responsibility of action, public justification or justifiability of decisions, financial probity and
meticulousness and so forth are very limited applicability. In fact, public and private
administrations are the two species of the same genus, but they have special values and
techniques of their own which give each of its distinctive character’.
16.5 CLASSICAL APPROACH
Waldo emphasized that public administration did not begin in the late 19th and early
20th centuries with the development of the self-conscious study of public administration on a
scale in human history. Waldo asserts that the determinants of the specific content of public
administration were the reform movement and the progressive era. That era emphasized
executive leadership, civil service reform and education for citizenship and sought to expose
inefficiency through scientific investigations. These characteristics were incorporated the
classical approach to public administration. Waldo identified five basic characteristics of the
classical approach to public administration in the year 1940. First, fundamental premise of
213
MPA-102/OSOU
politics-administration dichotomy was that politics should be separated from administration.

Second, generic management orientation assumed that the techniques of private management
were applicable in the public sector. He argues that public administration accepted both
business procedures and ideology as the business model. The model used to the role of the
chief executive as well as to justify hierarchical control mechanisms, merit appointment and
the adoption of business-like budgetary procedures in the organization. Third, characteristic
was the search for a science of administration. It was believed that the scientific study of
administration could lead to the discovery of general ‘principles’ of administration on which
efficient government could be based. Fourth, the emphasis on centralization of executive
activities, objective was to centralize responsibility, to build the power of the chief executive
by establishing stronger hierarchical controls within the executive branch and to abolish the
superfluous offices in the name of efficiency. Fifth, the classical approach contained a basic
commitment to democracy. Democracy was defined substantively rather than procedurally, to
be achieved by establishing a strong, responsive and responsible government to serve the
people in an emergent ‘Great Society’. Finally, Waldo challenges the classicist’s emphasis on
efficiency intended to replace a moralistic approach to public administration. Waldo maintains
that the idea of efficiency itself became instilled with a moral significance, as a pursuit of
“technical efficiency” was transformed into a pursuit of “social efficiency.” Although
efficiency itself is not a value, it is a useful concept only within a framework of consciously
held values. One must consider the object of efficiency, since it is not reasonable to assume
that it is desirable to accomplish any end efficiently.
16.6 POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION
Waldo was known as a critic of the politics-administration dichotomy, unrestricted

this concept explaining that it related to democracy/bureaucracy. This is based on his early
publication Administrative State in which he conceptualized politics/administration narrowly
as deciding and executing. Later his publications offer ‘broader conceptualization and a more
ambivalent and a more positive appraisal of the concept of dichotomy’. To him the dichotomy
was intended to resolve the conflict between bureaucracy and democracy by making elected
officials responsible to framing policy and restricting administrators to the execute that policy.
Public administration in the classical period was false to the ideal of democracy and it is seen
as desirable. Waldo denies that politics and policy considerations can be excluded from
214
MPA-102/OSOU
administration. So politics and administration dichotomy is false. Cooperation between

political and administrative domains should be encouraged in the society.
16.7 ORGANIZATION THEORY
Dwight Waldo divides the development of organization theory into three stages. The first stage
was the classical period, represented by the works of authors such as Taylor, Gulick, Fayol and
Mooney. The classical stage of organization theory was based on the machine model of the
organization and emphasized the rational aspects of human behavior in 1930s. He said it is
ended with the publication of the papers on the science of administration. The second stage
was the neoclassical approach which began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s. The
neoclassical approach emphasized the emotions and socio-psychological dimensions of human
behavior in organizations. The third stage was modern organization theory began with the
publication of March and Simon’s Organizations in 1958. This theory is based on an organic
or natural system model of the organization and stresses organizational growth and survival. It
recommends organizations that have less reliance on hierarchical controls, more recognized
sources of authority, greater opportunity for personal mobility and greater accessibility to
organizational change. Modern organization theory is behavioral in orientation, adopting the
methods of the physical and biological sciences and a value-free theory of organizations.
16.8 COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
According to Dwight Waldo, comparative public administration is different from

modern organization theory. It beliefs on models such as the systems framework and structural
functionalism; an interdisciplinary orientation; a search for universal concepts, formulas and
theories; and an emphasis on empirical description. This concept focuses on cultural diversity
and its fascination with Weberian bureaucracies. This is about the relationship between
administration and society the dependence of civilization on effective governmental
administration and the difficulties in transferring the Western model of administration to other
nations’ cultures. Comparative public administration has been the first visible major
development in the past world-war evolution of public administration. It aims at the
development of a more systematic and scientific public administration by constructing and
enhancing theory in public administration. Waldo asserted that comparative public
administration movement failed to produce anything in the way of rigorous theory.
215
MPA-102/OSOU
16.9 NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The Minnowbrook Conference was held under the patronage of Dwight Waldo gave
rise to ‘New public administration’ in the year 1960s. The publication of Waldo’s article
‘Public administration in a time of revolutions’ was in 1968. Again the publication of ‘Public
administration in a time of turbulence’ also edited by Waldo in 1971.A major development in
contemporary public administration is the New Public Administration movement during the
period late 1960s and early 1970s was a part of the rebellion of youth and the counter culture
of the non-Marxian left. The conference was hosted by Waldo bringing together young and
progressive scholars and practitioners who were under the age of 35 years, in revolutionizing
the field of public administration. Minnowbrook Syracuse University’s Conference Center is
considered as new school of thought and that gave the rise of the ‘Waldovian perspective’. It
was to establish new directions for the field public administrations. The New Public
Administration criticized the old public administration as its lack of an ideological-
philosophical framework and supported an activist role for the administrator in social equality.
Waldo refers to the movement as a “New Romanticism,” with the philosophical movement. It
has assumption that man is inherently good but is corrupted by bad institutions. Also it is
emphasizing the role of feeling over reason, senses over the mind and creativity over
convention and rules. The basic themes of the New Public Administration are participation,
decentralization and representative bureaucracy. Participation is supported both as a political
process and as an organizational process. Political participation is seen as a means of
dispersing power and increasing citizen involvement in the government. The movement
rejected both simple majoritarianism and pluralism in favour of alternatives. Support for
organizational participation is a part of what Waldo sees as the movement’s massive hostility
to anything perceived as bureaucratic. It is a means for promoting change within the
organization. Decentralization like participation is intended to disperse power and increase
citizen involvement in governmental decision making processes and organizational processes.
Representative democracy is meant to promote client-centered or citizen-centric administration
and representation of clientele interests by the administrators. He finds validity in the anti-
organizational stance of the New Public Administration. Again he considers much of the
charge to be unfair and unrealistic. He notes that most innovative techniques and technologies
have been created in the bureaucratic organizations. Even if the bureaucracy serves the status
quo, which is not a monolithic interest, but a diversity of interests. Waldo charges that the
216
MPA-102/OSOU
critics attack a narrow conception of efficiency that had long been discarded. He says that
there is no such thing called “public philosophy” and that the problem now is to find the
boundaries of public administration.
Waldo identified the positive and negative features of the new public administration.
Positively, it is some sort of the movement in the direction of normative theory, philosophy,
social concern and activism. Negatively, it turns away from positivism and scienticism. He
pointed out that new public administration three perspectives very clearly:
i) Client-oriented bureaucracy
ii) Representative bureaucracy
iii) People’s participation in administration
16.10 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS PROFESSION
Dwight Waldo says that ‘public administration is not a profession in a strict sense is
not to become one and perhaps should not even one’. Waldo was more sympathetic to a
“professional” orientation in public administration. He acknowledges that public
administration is not a profession in a strict sense and perhaps should not even be done. He
considers professionalism to be a good attitude or strategy and asserts that public
administration should move from a disciplinary to a professional perspective with a separate
professional school status in the university. Also Waldo says that public administration is both
science and art as well as both the theory and practice. It has a very dynamic multidisciplinary
focus rather than confined single theory of administration. Public administration is given
direction by a broad social purpose for the development of the society. Public administration
as a profession, Waldo retains, frees public administration from its second-class status in
colleges of liberal arts and frees it from a sense of guilt about not having a typical paradigm.
He gives license to seek whatever is needed and wherever it is located. Waldo suggests that
public administration might act as a profession without being one or even hoping to become
one.
16.11 FUTURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dwight Waldo sees the future as a world of instability and change. A major force for
change is the current transition from and industrial society to a post-industrial society. There is
still validity to the notion that the postindustrial society will see the emergence of knowledge
as a crucial factor in productivity, the creation of new technologies for processing information,
217
MPA-102/OSOU
the decline of the factor, the establishment of new power elites and power centres based on
scientific-technological knowledge and a shift in emphasis from production to distribution and
service occupations. This will result in an increasing pace of economic-social-political change
which will generate institutional and psychological social crises. These forces raise an array of
problems that must at least in part be addressed by public administration. A particular problem
for public administration will be dealing with new forms of organization and management and
calls for the assumption of new responsibilities. Waldo forecasts that organizations of the
future will be less bureaucratic in nature. The organisations are increasingly of a mixed public-
private nature, more chains, different complexes or systems of organizations than unitary
organizations. Also it will be more international and multinational in their operations rather
than only in national sphere. These new organizational styles raise questions about how to
develop less bureaucratic organizations without encouraging any kind of confusion. Again,
how to deal with increasing ethical complexity in operations and how to deal with the
increasing likelihood of conflict and crisis. Public administration is apt to be called on to
perform even more functions. This may lead to the danger of overload in a system which
already has responsibility beyond the authority it can command or the virtue it can summon.
From future perspective, Waldo observes that there are two major scenarios: the totalitarian
and the anarchist. The totalitarian scenario reconciles public and private mortality by definition
as government totally integrates and controls. The anarchist scenario, which Waldo sees as
preferable, or at least less undesirable, sees the future as characterized by a multiplicity of
diffuse and complex socio-economic-political institutions with considerable ambiguity in the
concept of public morality. In reaction to the anarchist scenario, Waldo feels that it is akin to
watching a movie in a reverse mode as the sovereign state is dissolved and its clear vertical
structure of authority is replaced by complicated, contractual and informal horizontal
relationships. Waldo believes that the future must be created, it cannot be copied. He expresses
the hope that reciprocal learning, mutual adjustment and institutional intervention may now be
speeded; that a world unified, but not unitary, harmonious, but not homogenized, may develop
for effective administration.
According to Waldo, examining the role of public administration in turbulent times,
organisations of the future will be as follows:
a- less bureaucratic
b- mixed public –private nature
c- more chains and complexes system of organisation
d- more international and multinational operation
218
MPA-102/OSOU
16.12 CONCLUSION
As discussed above, Waldo is more a critical thinker and commentator in the field of
public administration in his description in the approach to the history of public administration.
He has mixed contradictory ideas. Waldo asserts in his writings that public administration is
necessarily involved in politics though he has stressed some value in the concept of politics-
administration dichotomy. According to Waldo, the discipline of public administration is both
as an art and as science. He fails to specify an area in which each art and science aspect of
public administration might be applicable. He discusses the differences and the similarities
between the public administration and the private administration. But he has not specify the
similarities and differences, or the consequences of the public administration and the private
administration. To Waldo, we should have both democracy and bureaucracy, but he does not
tell us either how the conflicts between those forces can be resolved or the balance between
them. He says that public administration should not be a profession, but he urges that it act like
one. Waldo believes that administration and civilization are closely linked where the
administration is government’s central mechanism for dealing with change. Above all Waldo
is an eminent administrative thinker who depicts different side of the discipline of public
administration for its effectiveness.
16.13 ACTIVITIES
1. Discuss the major contributions made by an eminent thinker Dwight Waldo to the
study of Public Administration.
2. Comment on the views of Waldo on Comparative Public Administration.
3. ‘Waldo was an administrative historian, chronicler and an administrative philosopher’
- Comment.
4. Describe the concept of new public administration according to Dwight Waldo.
5. Critically analyze the view of Dwight Waldo on administrative state.
6. State about the views of Waldo on politics and administration.
7. Write about the future of public administration.
16.14. REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS

 Baker, R.J.S., (1972), Administrative Theory and Public Administration, London,
219
MPA-102/OSOU
Hutchinson University Library;

 Basu Rumki, (2010); Public Administration: Concepts and Theories; Sterling
Publisher, New Delhi;
 Iryna Illiash, (2007), Waldo Revisited or Genesis of the Idea of Looking at
Administration through the Prism of the Arts,
 Maheshwari, S.R. (2004), Administrative Thinkers; MacMilan India Ltd, New Delhi;
 Mukhi, H.R. (1998). Comparative Public Administration, SBD Publishers, New Delhi;
 Negro F.A. and Negro, L.G.(1983), Modern Public Administration. New York:
Hamper and Row Publishers;
 Nicholas, Henry, (2004), Public Administration and Public Affairs. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Inc. Ravindra Prasad, D.et.al ,(ed.,) 2012, Administrative Thinkers,
Sterling Publishers, New Delhi;
 Y.Pardhasarathi (2015), ‘ Administrative Historian: Dwight Waldo’ , Y.Pardhasarathi,
E-Pathasala, Ministry of HRD, New Delhi;
 Marume, R. R. Jubenkanda , C. W. Namusi (2013), Comparative Public Administration
International Journal of Science and Research, ISSN (Online): 2319-7064.
220

Mpa - 102

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mpa - 102

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPA-102/OSOU

Block Block Name Unit Unit

2 FW Taylor & Henry Fayol

Block Block Name Unit Unit

Neo-Classical 6 M.P. Follet

Block Block Name Unit Unit

Block Block Name Unit Unit

Prof. Srinibas Pathi (Member) - Prof. Prof. Amiya Paricha (Member)-

This Study Material has been developed by Odisha State Open

Blocks /Units Page No.

Unit-2: FW Taylor & Henry Fayol

Unit-3: Karl Marx & Max Weber

Unit-4: Luther Gullick & Lyndall Urwick

Block- 2 Neo-Classical Thinkers 75 - 111

Unit-5: Elton Mayo

Unit-6: M.P. Follet

Unit-7: Chester Barnard

Unit-8: Chris Argyris

Block- 3 Modern Thinkers 112 - 168

Unit-9: A.H. Maslow

Unit-10: Frederick Herzberg

Unit-12: Herbert Simon

Block- 4 Modern Thinkers of 21st Century 169 - 220

Unit-15: Rensis Likert

Unit-16: Dwight Waldo

Unit-2: FW Taylor & Henry Fayol

Unit-3: Karl Marx & Max Weber

Unit-4: Luther Gullick & Lyndall Urwick

UNIT-1: KAUTILYA AND WOODROW WILSON

1.2 Outlining Kautilya’s Arthashastra

1.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES

1.2 OUTLINING KAUTILYA'S ARTHASHASTRA

1.3 KAUTILYA’S ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT

1.3.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF WELFARE STATE

1. Creation and regulation the livelihood means;

1.3.2 THE SAPTANG DOCTRINE OF STATE

Considering Swami or King to be sovereign, Kautilya has described him to be the

1.3.3 MANDAL AND SHADGUNYA DOCTRINES

As regards international relations, Kautilya gave importance to geography and

● Vijigishu: The king who aspires to be the conqueror

● Circle 1: Vijigishu, his friend, friend’s friend

1.3.4 EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM AND ORGANIZED PERSONNEL

some if the peculiarities of Kautilya's personnel administration. Three types of government

1.3.5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION

1.4 KAUTILYA'S CRITICAL APPRAISAL

1.5 WOODROW WILSON’S LIFE AND WORKS

brilliant educationist, a passionate historian, a dedicated reformer, a dynamic statesman and a

The major works authored by Woodrow Wilson include Congressional Government

1.6 WOODROW WILSON'S ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT

He has tried to draw conceptual distinctions between Politics and Administration as to

1.6.1 SCIENCE OF ADMINISTRATION

1.6.2 EVOLUTION OF THE STUDY OF ADMINISTRATION

1.6.3 DICHOTOMY BETWEEN POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION

1.6.4 PUBLIC OPINION AND ADMINISTRATION

1.6.5 COMPARATIVE METHODS

1.7 WOODROW WILSON’S CRITICAL APPRAISAL

1.9 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS

 Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 2,

UNIT-2: FREDERIC WINSLOW TAYLOR &HENRY FAYOL

2.0 LEARNING OUTCOMES

2.2 F.W TAYLOR

2.2.1 THE BACKGROUND

2.2.2 LIFE AND WORKS