Administrative Thought

Answer : The Scientific Management Theory (SMT) by Taylor gave a new impetus to the administrative studies but with passage of time, it came under criticism by Human Relation Movement.

The Scientific Management Theory over-emphasised upon science and scientific methods to aply upon organisation. In this course, he over-simplified the human being and rather gave it a mechanistic view. Here, he totally ignored the socio-psychological variables of human personality. He totally simplified the human motivation in terms of money. He totally ignored other aspects viz. personal, social, cultural which also influence the human motivation.

Moreover, he placed a total emphasis upon formal organization system where rules were more followed. This overtly formal view of organisation also failed to get support from intellectual quarters. The Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory, in a way, look narrow in its perspective and approach. It was found to be more suitable for lower level of organisation where routine work is done. For the intellectual matters e.g. policy formulation, planning, it has got nothing such to offer.

Therefore, the socio-psychological factors, which are backbone of human personality were totally absent from the Scientific Management Theory of Taylor.

Answer : In management studies, McGregor emerged as a management psychiatrist, who quite significantly demonstrated the unrealistic and limiting assumptions of traditional theories of management concerning human nature and control of human behaviour in the organizational setting.

His empirical researches in organisational conflicts and maladjustments in human relations led him to believe that control in human affairs can be viewed as an integration of human behaviour. He developed two assumptions and quite scientifically tested their hypothesis to propound his theories of management control i.e. Theory X and Theory Y.

The assumptions of Theory X are:

1. An average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it, if he can.
2. Hence, most people must be corrected, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate efforts towards the achievement of organisational objectives.
3. The average human being refers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all.

This assumption embodies mediocrity of masses. This is also known as ‘carrot and stick’ theory.

It explains the consequences of a particular managerial strategy. It does not describe human nature. It is built on least common human denominator, the factory hand of the past.

On the other hand, Theory Y assumes:

1. The expenditure of physical and mental efforts in work is as natural as play or rest.
2. Mass exercises, self-direction and self-control in the services of the objectives to which the persons involved are committed.
3. Commitment to the objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievements.

The basic premise of this theory is that the limits on human collaboration in the organizational setting are not limits of human nature, but of management’s ingenuity in discovering how to realize the potential represented by its human resources.

The theory believes that integration of behavioiur is the key process in management.

This theory emphasises more on self-control, motivation. McGregor calls that this theory is an open invitation for innovation.

This theory has been found to be very relevant and effective in modern day management and industry. He indicates a high correlation between the acceptance of responsibility and commitment to objectives.

The theory Y has also found relevance in line-staff relationship.

The line managers who seek cooperation within the context of theory Y can establish relationship
with their subordinates, their superiors and their colleagues.

This stresses upon teamwork at each level of organization. It further helps by improving staff-line collaboration.

Moreover, in the recent phase of New Public Management, the market comes into play a very crucial role in the management and industry.

Here, the traditional practices cannot be used for dealing with a highly complex situation.

Therefore, this means self-control, direction, motivation, sense of belongingness, better cooperation and coordination among various units are required, which is arguably suggested by McGregor.

To sum up, McGregor had been able to come out of his age in terms of his managerial theories.

Answer : The classical science of administration is at the centre-stage in evolution of the Public Administration. The excessive research done by the theorist like F. W. Taylor, Henry Fayol, Gullick, Urwik, Max Weber gave the very base to the field of public administration on which in later years public administration developed. But the classical science suffers from many flaws like their value neutral mechanistic approach etc.

The classical scientist mainly concentrated on increasing efficiency and completely ignored the human part. Taylor in his scientific management theory interpreted the organizational efficiency in the mechanistic terms only. He treated worker as a machine. He is also criticized for oversimplification of human motivation. He talked only about financial incentives. Same way Fayol was also opposed for his mechanistic model.

The classical theorists on the other hand were criticized as an unscientific theory of organization. It is said that the theory was not tested under scientific conditions, thus the empirical base was missing. It was an ‘atomistic’ theory as it saw human beings in isolation from the fellow men in organization. It is described as ‘normative’ theory because it is more concerned with what ought to be rather than what is, thus unlike the behavioural approach, it did not study the actual behaviour in the organisation.

The classical science of administration was termed as a closed and static model. There is virtually complete exclusion of the organization from the outside environment. At the motivational front it talked only about economic incentives. There was nothing to address the workers grievances. They were taken as granted. He was thought that they will work harder for money. The workers were treated like a cog in the machine. That’s why the classical science was criticized by Dwight Waldo. Waldo was against the value neutrality of classical thinkers. He was against the mechanistic model. Waldo said that public administration needs a change by which it can be made more relevant to the society. This change can only be imparted it include values human emotions in the administration.

The classical writers were against the inclusion of value in the administration because they wanted to make administration a science. But in this course of action they stood against the use of administration for the welfare of common and poor people who later accused public administration as irrelevant for their welfare. Waldo wanted to remove those flaws so that the social equity is achieved and public administration be seen as the only answer to their miseries.

Some way Robert Dahl criticized the classical thinker for their quest of making administration a science. Robert Dahl said that mechanistic model is of no use as it’s almost impossible to keep human emotions out of the picture. He said that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the public administration to avoid human emotions and values. The second thing for which he criticized the classical thinkers was their indifferenceness towards making public administration a comparative science. He criticized the classical scientists for not doing enough research works in this field.

The principles given by the classical scientist were criticized and termed a mere ‘proverbs’ by Simon. He said that every principle contradicts with other principle. For example he said that ‘principle of specialisation’ and ‘principle of unity of command’ contradicts each other. Whatever be the criticism its clear that the classical science provided a deep insight in to organisation analysis and they developed public administration in to a science.

Answer : Simon is regarded as the most important thinker who used system’s theory for presenting his path breaking ideas whether its his criticism of classical thinkers or his emphasis on making an efficient, value free administrative science, he always provided a deep insight in to all these concepts. But his most important theory ‘The Decision Making Theory’ has remained one of the much-talked theory in today’s administrative world.

Simon followed system theory. He criticized the classical thinkers and called their finding as ‘proverbs’. This was the first most important thing that he did because he gave the administrators of that times a new direction of thinking in a more wider scope of systems approach.

Till now the public administration was very deeply affected by classical thinkers, who gave narrow approaches. Secondly Simon gave the concept of rationality in decision-making, which he termed as the most important activity of any organization.

His concept of bounded rationality in decision-making was the most path-breaking concept in administrative process till now. Simon said the decision-making involves three activities of intelligence, design and choice which are essential for any administrator. His findings were different form those of his predecessors, so it created a havoc in contemporary administrative world.

Simon wanted to make administratia a value free efficient science. He said that although it difficult to exclude value from decision-making but its effect can be minimized.

He made the distinctions between programmed and non-programmed decisions. He also stressed on training for increasing efficiency.

All his concepts gave the administrators what they wanted i.e. a new line of thinking, a new way to explore more techniques in the field of administration. He motivated the youngsters to choose Public Administration as a profession. He was truly professional in his approach.

Answer : Mary Parker Follet is regarded as a bridge between the classical approach and behavioural human relations approach. She also viewed organization as a social system and highlighted the sociological and psychological dimensions of administration and management. But despite all these, her work shows stress on the idealism which was main problem with her.

She said there is conflicts in every organization and its inevitable but even this conflict can be used as a constructive input if it is resolved with constructive integration. To gain valuable inputs from conflict and to solve a conflict in a way that no party looses and both gains clearly reflects the idealism, which is the most prefect state. Regarding orders she refused to accept superior giving orders to subordinates. She says that they both should both take orders from the situation and not from their superiors. This will make the superior subordinate relationship non relevant and hence the conflicts can also be diverted. This concept is also showing near perfectionism. In this way she said that superior do not show ‘power over’ but show ‘power with’ the subordinates. Hence they will both work for more effectiveness of an organisation.

About Authority and Responsibility she says that authority should also flow from the work done and not from the position held. She said the ‘Authority belongs to the job and stays with the job’. In this way she said that ‘delegation of authority’ is an obsolete expression. Regarding responsibility she said that it should be functional or pluralistic or cumulative or group responsibility. In this way she rejected the idea of final responsibility. All this goes on to show that she tried everything to keep conflict away and make organisation near perfect through her idealistic ideas, which later worked as her most important criticism.

Answer : 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 organisation. According to her, authority stems from the task being performed and 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 the 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 the responsible?” than “to whom is he responsible?” Follett also believes in pluralistic concept of responsibility or cumulative responsibility and rejects ultimate responsibility as an illusion.

Thus, Authority can be defined as the right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. Thus authority is the legitimate right to command or influence others to behave toward the attainment of specific goals of an administrative system. In the administration each position or job has specific orders that job-holders acquire from the title of the position.

Answer : The classical science of administration is also known is “formal organization theory” or“traditional theory” or the “structural theory”. This theory of administration was developed during the years between the first and second World Wars. The most important concern of the classical theory is the formulation of certain universal principles of organisation.

The classical administrative science’s most critical failure 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 classical administrative theory is also criticised for its neglect of the human element in organization. In the writings of classical thinkers, there are certain trends, which considered humans as insignificant in administrative processes. In the first place, there is a tendency to treat the human being as an inert instrument incapable of individual contribution based on personal qualifications.

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 organizations 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.

The dynamic nature of administration and the ever changing setting in which it functions is not given adequate attention by the classical theorists.

Answer : The case of public administration being a science has been stated in three ways varying in the degree of the claim made. On the lowest plane, it has been said that though at the present state of its development, public administration may not merit the name of a science in due course it may become one. What it presents to us at present is a framework of connected ideas about public administration which provides a basis for further study and analysis, and when these have been carried forward sufficiently, public administration will emerge as a science just like other social sciences.

Working in a field where there are still so many unknown factors, so much territory unexplored, the student can do no more than suggest a framework of thought, an arrangement of ideas and principles which may help others to make their own synthesis out of their own experiences. The fact that these principles, collected from the writings of half a dozen different people, many of whom had made no attempt to correlate their work with that of the others, can be presented in a coherent and logical pattern is in itself strong evidence that there is a common element in all experience of the conduct of social groups, that a true science of administration is ultimately possible.

Answer : Bureaucracy is regarding much closer to a closed system where there is not much interference with the outside environment. Bureaucracy as an institution is thought to be having its own unique way of functioning, which is isolated from the political life of the people. Bureaucracy has its own motives, objectives and policy for service delivery. It is not pressurized or influenced by public opinions.

Some of the characteristics of bureaucracy has been the rules, neutrality, impersonality in administration hierarchy etc. Bureaucracy moves according to the written rules. It does not want to deviate from the rules, which makes it a rigid and closed system. In this age of awareness and information it becomes difficult for the bureaucracy to follow the procedure and it is not able to work in isolation with the people. Neutrality means impartiality but because of influential public leaders the neutrality has also been challenged. The political executive tries to move bureaucracy on his own lines, which hampers the neutrality. Impersonality is also being challenged due to the public opinion where some target groups need more attention and should be given a favour. Hierarchy, which is the most important characteristics of bureaucracy has been broken sometime to impart some degree of flexibility due to the political or public purposes.

All these show that it has virtually become impossible for the bureaucracy to work according to its norms that’s why it is being said that Bureaucracy can exist only where the whole service of the state is removed form the common political life of the people.

Answer : Weber’s idea of bureaucracy was an ideal type. According to him if the workers are impersonal in their outlook then only they can be rational, because rationality was the central concern in his ideal type of organisation which he called bureaucracy.

Impersonality means that a bureaucratic from of organization does not entertain irrational sentiments. These are devoid of human emotions and values. Only than it can work rationally because these sentiments drive him towards the faulty work schedule because of his personal likes and dislikes. Weber was saying that officials are expected to carry out their duties without allowing themselves to be influenced by their personal emotions and sentiments. Official’s work should be conducted without a bias and the impersonal order should orient the actions of the bureaucratic both in issuance of the commands to subordinates and their obedience to them.

If this is the case of impersonal detachment than the idea of espirit de corps seems to be incompatible with it. Espirit de corps means teamwork, where many persons are emotionally attached and work as a team to find desired ends. The impersonal detachment calls for impersonality and the work is done by individuals. In espirit de corps there is notion that no one in this world is perfect and the shortcoming can be removed if all work in a group. This is a novel idea to complete a task but in bureaucracy this is not allowed. This is due to the reason that there will be bias if the work is carried in groups. Some persons of a group may dislike the other or vice versa. In that case their personal likes and dislikes will matter, which means that the decision taken will not be rational.

Rationality can be achieved only in a condition where the human beings are being transformed into machines, which do not have any sentiment and emotions. Rationality is opposite to the values. Science is said to be rational because it is devoid of values. Same is the case with bureaucracy, which needs personnels with impersonal detachment.

In espirit de corps or team spirit the members of the groups favours each other and helps each other. They try to maximize their profit or out put by helping each other in their task. But this can lead to undue favour and nepotism some times. This results in irrationality, which is why it is said that the impersonal detachment is necessary to make any organization an ideal type. It is contrary to the teamwork. The teamwork is not predictable where as due to the impersonal detachment the bureaucratic work is often predictable. Also the mechanistic view ensures that the decision will be programmed type and impartial, there will not be any undue preferences and favours. In espirit de corps the decision is a team decision. It is not programmed and of non-routine type.

The two notions of impersonal detachment and espirit de corps are in conflict with each other such that it can be said that they both are at the different end of a continuum.

Answer : Although Max Weber revolutionized the field of administration by giving his famous concept of ‘bureaucracy’ but his insistence on making it an ideal type for administration was not at par with the modern administrative set up, which needs flexibility.

Weber gave the concept of hierarchy, rules of law, impersonal order, written documents sphere of competence, neutrality etc. But if these concepts are to be examined in modern day scenario, they do not seen to be empirically valid.

Hierarchy means a line of command where orders flows from top to bottom and the there is a superior subordinate relationship. But in modern administration this will result in delay and wastage of time, as there are many problems that can be tackled at the subordinate level and the superior need not be informed on every petty issue.

Strict adhering to rule of also hampers the rapid progress as well as the initiatives by the administrator. Innovations are something that are overlooked. The administration in this way changes in a closed system, which is detrimental to the whole state. Likewise sphere of competence means every administrator will have his unique sphere in which he will have to work. But with modern day administration, which requires interlinkages and coordination there is a complex overlapping of spheres, hence this notion is also not valid empirically.

Impersonal order and neutrality will require human beings, working as machines. As it will strike out the notion of values from the administrator he will work as a cog in the machine. Also in todays world where there is increasing concerns about people and there is a mix-up between the polity and administration one can not hold the neutrality in the true spirit.

All this shows that with ever-increasing complexity the administration needs to be more flexible and value ridden than be just a machine, which goes on to show that Weber’s ideal type can not be empirically validated.

Answer : Human relation theory unlike other theories is different theory, which believes that human problems need human solution. These problems should be first be understood and then solution thought of, which can be based on human data and human tools. It stresses on human motivations and informal group functioning. It rejects formal institutionalization. Multi-dimensional nature of man is of utmost importance for studying all organizational problems.

Human Relation theory is based on Hawthorne Experiments, which were carried out by the Western Electric Company under the leadership of Elton Mayo. The experiments led great contribution to the development of the Human Relation School.

Since mechanistic theory had not come up to expectations of the people, and is becoming gradually outdated, Humanistic or Social Psychological theory has been put forth.The theory is based on Hawthorne experiment carried out in 1937 by Mayo and others. It lays stress on working relationship. It is emotional and personal and is based on intra-personal relationship and is customary. It is neither written nor manualised. These are mainly informal outlays which portray the patterns of informal deviations from manualisedbehaviour.

Under Hawthorne experiment of Western Electric Company in Chicago, conducted three major research on human relations. One popularly known as the illumination experiment was designed by the research team to study the effects of illumination upon workers efficiency and productivity. Eventually researchers concluded that to some extent the workers were responding actually to the experiment itself rather than to the levels of illumination. This gives rise to what is called the Howthorne effect: the theory that workers perform more efficiently because special attention is being devoted to them. Next to this experiment, was to examine the role of fatigue and monotony on the efficiency and the output of workers. For this, the scientists recruited small work groups of six women each assembling telephone relays. The researches made as many as ten changes in working conditions such as shorter hours, longer rest breaks and number of incentives. Output increased each time a favourable change was made.

Mayo’s findings of the Hawthorne experiments have profoundly changed the face of the organization theory. His most important finding was to identify the roots of work satisfaction as non-economic and to connect them with the interest taken in a worker’s performance.

Thus in Mayo’s view, is the ultimate importance of the Hawthorne studies. The Hawthorne studies developed a more complex and realistic model of human nature. As a consequence, human beings are recognized as complex and influential input into organizational performance. Human beings are regarded as key contributors to organizational efficiency, productivity and in the goal attainment.

Mayo’s contribution to management thinking was seminal. From the Hawthorne studies Mayo discovered that many problems of workers-management relations resulted not from insufficient task specialization or inadequate wages but from social and psychological forces that were often quite complex. Mayo’s contribution revealed the importance of the most significant conclusion of Human emotions, reactions and respect to the business of managing others. Mayo demonstrated once and for all that management could only succeed in leading an organization’s employees if the workers, in their informal groups, accepted that leadership without reservation.

However, later researchers recognized the need for rigorous examination of psychological and social aspects of organizational behaviours. They are regarded as behavioural scientists. Chief among them, like McGregor, Maslow, Herzberg, Argyris, Likert etc. firmly advocated that in place of the concept of social man, the concept of self actualizing man would be appropriate to explain human behaviour and human motivations.

They emphasized the value of more democratic, less authoritarian, less hierarchically structured organizations than suggested by classical writers. For instance Maslow a hierarchy of human needs which became the basis for explaining work motivation in organizations. According to him, people generally have five basic needs (physiological, safety, social, self-esteem and self-actualization). They satisfy these needs in their orders of importance. Once these needs are reasonably met, they seek to satisfy higher-order needs. Unlike Mayo, behaviourlists believe that people will be productive if they are given opportunities to use their abilities and creative skills.

Again unlike, Mayo’s Human relation school, the Behavioural Approach takes a more dynamic and organic view of organizations, their managements, work groups and individuals. It emphasizes psychological needs, intrinsic rewards and self-motivation much more than any of the other theories.

Answer : The meaning of term ‘bureaucracy’ which is given by Weber is that, “it is an administrative body of appointed officials. So, bureaucracy is collective form of appointed officials and not elected. For example we have appointed Secretaries and Chief Sec retaries in various governmental organizations.

Government nowadays takes up many welfare and construction work, for which there are various governmental organizational units involved in many welfare activities and various other departments and officer operates under government which performs various function. Now these organizational units work under proper structure and rules and regulation and are headed by appointed officials. These officials are termed bureaucrats and whole system of administration as bureaucracy.

Now, to understand or to analyse and organizational unit in governmental setting, we must treat bureaucracy as structure. Under this bureaucratic structure the following features are present:

1. The officials are arranged in hierarchy and they obey order of their immediate superior.
2. There is impersonal relationship between officials.
3. They work under proper code of conduct and ethic and they have to follow the rules and regulations strictly.
4. Every organizational units have their own written document comprised of Rules and Laws related to that organization are adherence to those rules and regulations is must.
5. Official business is conducted on continuous basis.

For example to understand the concept more clearly, one can take example of Central Secretariat. This Secretariat is headed by Cabinet Secretary as an administrative head, and under him these various Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, and Deputy Secretary which heads various others departments in Central Secretariat.

1. all these officials work under proper written rules and conduct of business.
2. all these officials are appointed and not elected.
3. all these officials are arranged in hierarchy and they have to obey impersonal order of their immediate boss.
4. they conduct business on continuous basis.

Now, we can say that bureaucracy is a structure of appointed officials to take up government activities and work under proper written rules, hierarchy and continuous business and above all impartially.

Now, after taking structural aspect of bureaucracy in government organizational unit we have to look into administration aspect in governmental organizational administration. We can simply define, bureaucracy as the function of coordinating all the activities in an organization through the process of planning, organizing, staffing, commanding and controlling to achieve predetermined goals of an organization. In this bureaucratic structure it is political executive which is elected official which formulating or laid broad policies of government and it is this bureaucrats which actually take up the implementation plan of these policies.

Through this bureaucratic structure, that is, the appointed official plan various programmes and projects in detail taking into consideration broad policies in mind, and they supports measure to procure funds and proper utilization of these funds and service resource of the organizational units.

These officials organized everything right from man, material and money. Through various agencies like UPSC and SSC various manpower are recruited.

These officials command the various officer under them to take up the implementation of programmes and they even control various activities. Programmes are implemented according to set predetermined standards and if there is any deviation from the standard they are to evaluate the deviation and rectify it.

So on the basis of above discussion it is really possible to analyse any organizational unit of government when bureaucracy is neutral as structure and administration as a process or function like planning organizing and controlling the system.

Answer : Herbert A. Simon is the foremost theorist of decision. He defined decision-making as “the optimum national choice between alternative causes of action.

According to Simon, decision-making pervades the entire orgnisation, that is, decisions are made at all levels of the organization. Hence he viewed an organization as a structure of decision-makers. He equated administration with decision-making as every aspect of administration revolves around decision-making.

Simon was very critical of the classical approach and its advocacy of principles of administration having – universal application. He challenged their universal validity and described them as “proverbs” occurring in mutually contradictory pairs. He argued that “before one can establish any immutable principles of administration, one must be able to describe, how an administrative organization looks and enacts how it works.”

Simon observed, “Before a science can develop principles, it must possess concepts. Decision-making is most important activity of administration. An Administrative Science, like any science, is concerned purely with factual statements. There is no place for ethical statements in the study of science.”

According to Simon, every decision is based upon two premises – the factual premises and value premises. A fact is a statement of reality, while a value is an expression of preference. A factual premise can be proved by observable and measurable means that is it can be tested empirically to find out its validity. A value premises, on the other hand, cannot be tested empirically, that is, it can only be subjectively asserted as valid.

According to Simon, the value premises are concerned with the choice ends of action, while the factual premises are concerned with choice means of action. He stated that, in so far as decisions dead to selection of final goals, they can be called ‘value judgements’ (i.e., the value component predominates), and in so far as they (decisions) involve the implementation of such goals, they can be called as ‘factual judgements’. (i.e., the factual component predominates).

According to Simon, decision-making comprises three principle phases. They are:

Intelligent Activity: Simon called first phase of decision-making as intelligent activity (borrowing the military meaning of intelligence). It involves finding occasions for making a decision. According to Simon, the executives spend a large fraction of their time surveying the economic, technical, political and social environment to identify new conditions that call for new actions.

Design Activity: Simon called second phase as design activity, consists of investing, developing and analyzing possible course of action, that is, finding alternative course of action. Simon believed that the executives spend an even larger fraction of their time, individually or with their associates, seeking to invent, design and develop possible courses of action for handling situation where a decision is needed.

Choice of activity:Simon called the last-phase in decision as the choice activity. It involves selecting a particular course of action from the given alternatives.

Herbert Simon further classified decision-making as programmed and non-programmed.

Simon’s Bounded Rationality Model: Herbert Simon dealt comprehensively with the rationality aspect of decision-making process. His model of rational decision-making is also known as Behaviour Alternative Model because he proposed an alternative model as a more realistic alternative to the classical ‘economic rationality model’.

Simon defined rationality means an objective and intelligent course of an action. Simon believed that total rationality is impossible in administrative behaviour. Hence, ‘maximising decisions’ is also not possible. He observed that human behaviour in an organizational setting is characterized by ‘bounded rationality’ (limited rationality) leading to ‘satisfying decisions’ as against ‘maximising decisions’ (optimizing decision). Satisfying (a word derived from the combination of words, ‘satisfaction’ and ‘sufficing’) decision implies that decision-makers choose an alternative which is satisfactory and good enough.

The following factors are actually responsible for bounded rationality

1. Dynamic nature of organizational objectives.
2. Imperfect information as well as limited capacity to process the available information.
3. Time and cost constraints.
4. Environmental for us or external for us.
5. Personal factions of decision-maker like pre-conceived notions, habits and so on.

On the basis of phases, bases and model of bounded rationality of decision-making, discussed in above paragraphs we can say that Herbert Simon has given a very comprehensive Administrative theory taking into consideration all aspects of an organization that is, human aspect, environmental factors, resources, time and cost factors. On these bases he has finally given satisfying model which says that decision-maker can opt for very satisfactory or good enough action among various alternatives to achieve optimum satisfaction and not cent percent satisfaction, which is very impossible to attain.

Answer : Authority, in the process of administration, may be defined as the legitimate right to give orders and get those orders obeyed. Then, exercise of authority involves superior – subordinate relationship and refers to positional authority.

The classical theory holds that authority involves in managerial position is achieved by delegation from higher position. Flow of this authority is known as top-down authority. Each manager in the organization has specific set of authority delegated to him and built into role prescriptions of his position. Authority at various level of the organization is required because managers at each level are responsible to get the things assigned to them. Max Weber’s views on authority have the same – prescriptive character. According to him, positional authority is the common feature of the most organizations existing today.

Chester I. Barnard challenged the traditional concept of flow of authority from top to bottom. The essential ingredient of Barnard’s concept of source of authority that person subject to authority voluntarily accepts it. Acceptance theory views authority as being present when a directive is legitimized by virtue of its acceptance from below. Authority is accepted to a certain extent of a ‘Zone of indifference’ and beyond the Zone, acceptance does not occur and authority does not exist.

Answer : Communication is an important principle of organization and is essential for realising its objectives. Millet describes, “Communication as the blood stream of an administrative-organisation”.

Communication can be defined as the “process of passing information and understanding from one person to another”.

Communication has come to be recognized as the first principle of administration. This is an age of communication. The average man today, is much closer to his government and his neighbours; he identifies himself more with life around him. Even in the international field, we are moving toward “one world”.

Researches in group dynamics and human psychology have proved that the successful working of one organization depends upon winning the cooperation of the persons working in it. Democracy demands that the public must be increasing associated with administration. Business and government alike, therefore, have felt the need for establishing between communication channels in their organizations. Management has recognized the part that communication plays in promoting participating cooperation and teamwork on the part of the employees. There is ample evidence of the recognition. Almost all civilized governments today have set up information, publicity and public relations - conference, workshops and other training programme are being organized to develop communication skills, particularly in United States.

Regarding decision-making process in public or private administration communication plays a very vital role. As we know that decisions-making take place at various levels of organization. Top level formulates broad policies and programmes, these policies or decisions regarding programmes are communicated to various levels down the hierarchy, so that these programmes can be finally implemented on ground level.

Now, in all these plan formulation and implementation communication plays a vital role. If communication system is properly maintained plans and policies, can be explained clearly down level of organization. Now, again when plans are finally executed, whether these execution is properly done or not or it is implemented according to predetermined goals, all these things should be communicated to top level through feed back which again very much related to one of the element of communication.

In our country when annual plans and single plans are formulated, which is nothing but decision-making regarding various programmes and policies of country in broader perspective. Now to achieve these targets it has to be communicated to the field agencies, which finally implement these policies, similarly these field agencies give feedback to their respective administrative head, and these administrative head to their respective Administrative Ministry about the actual position of implementation. All these feedback is possible only if there is good communication system exists in an organization.

So we can say that communication is very important principle of administration and it is involved in all process of administration or stages whether it is planning, organizing, staffing, coordination or controlling.

Answer : C.I. Barnard views an organization as a social system in which the communication, authority, specialization and purpose provides essential components for its proper working. But when he talks about coordination it seems all these four concepts have been engulfed in a single notion.

Communication according to him depends upon the character of authority and vice-versa. A communication is of no use if it is not properly understood by subordinates. Coordination between employees largely depends on communication. If the employees are properly informed about the organization and has a system of not only verticle but also horizontal communication then the coordination becomes easy.

Authority is necessary for coordination because it’s the same concept that provides the management, the power to order the employees. It helps in determining not only unity of direction but also helps in controlling the organisation.

Specialization is the need of hour and if different specialised parts of a organizationcan not be properly coordinated then the organization will disintegrate. Finally a well-defined purpose provides the management a goal which further helps in coordinating the organisation to achieve the same. Thus, all these four components are essential for coordination.

Answer : Administrative structure of public or private space is based on hierarchy. The hierarchy is nothing but various levels of organization. In organization there is top level i.e., executive, then there is middle level management i.e., manager and third level is supervisor at lower level. Now decisions taken at top level are transmitted to lower level for implementation of decisions.

If organizational levels are very tall that will cause unnecessary delay, and there arises a communication problem and supervision will also become a problem and finally affect efficiency of organization. So to improve efficiency these organizational level should be kept at minimum number. The decision can be communicated and can be achieved easily and supervision on span of control can be kept at optimum level. In this way we can easily achieve organisational goals.

Answer : Weber’s theory suggests that the bureaucracy is a neutral instrument which can be used by anyone who comes to gain control over it. However, experience has shown that the bureaucracy tends to function in the interest of ruling classes. The political, economic and social conditions of developing countries are not stable enough to bureaucracy neutrally so that fruits of this can be distributed to each part of society equitably. The politico-economic power tends to accumulate in certain pockets of society thus inhibiting its widespread distribution across society.

Weber notes that the bureaucracy comes to have a lot of power of its own, and that recruitment to bureaucracy is often made from among the rich, since it is only the rich who can afford the necessary higher education. All this leads to the inference that the upper levels of the bureaucracy belong to the upper classes and tend to function in their interest: the bureaucracy cannot be said to be neutral especially in the context of developing countries.

Answer : Decision-making is a rational process whereby decision maker seeks out and chooses the course of action that is most likely to maximize the attainment of the goals and objectives. Sometimes a group is entrusted with taking a decision. There are relative advantages and disadvantages of group decision-making in terms of the quality of the decision arrived at, the creativity of those decisions and the degree of decisions among those who must implement them.

It is generally agreed that participation in group decision-making increases the level of understanding and acceptance of group decision among individual members; participation increases the member’s commitment to executing group decisions.

The concept of consensus in decision-making is gaining grounds. Consensus does not imply unanimity; for perfect unanimity; for perfect unanimity is just impossible. It simply means that the majority of people subscribe to a particular view, which all the members are willing to accept in the larger interest of the organization.

Answer : The behavioural approach to the study of organization covers a method of examining public administration by studying individual and collective human behaviour in administrative situations. It brings to bear upon administrative problems an inter-disciplinary approach which includes sociology, individual and social psychology and cultural anthropology. This approach is different from traditional approach.

The behaviour approach is an improved and more mature version of human relations approach. It is mainly concerned with scientific study of human behaviour in diverse social environments. This approach aims at substituting empirical and realistic judgements for the purely value oriented judgements.

According to Smithburg, the behavioural method of public administration has four main characteristics:

1. Increased attention to the individual and his relationship to the administrative organization in which the former method of study and in particular, that of scientific management had tended to consider him rather as a thing or a means, without taking into account the different aspects of his personality and his relationship to interests and social groups other than the administrative organization in which he worked. Increased attention to the individual in administration is based on more realistic research concerning motivation, decision-making processes and the nature of authority. This is a continuous process.
2. The second feature of the behavioural approach is that administrative organization is studied as a social system, with the result that whereas formerly, attention was concentrated exclusively to formal and rational relationship of the organization; now informal relationships of men in the organization receive equal attention.
3. As a consequence, the means of communication in the public service receive more attention at the hands of the behaviouralists.
4. Another feature of this approach is the replacement of the theory of sovereignty by that of legitimacy. The theory of political sovereignty had given birth to the theories of hierarchical structure, line of authority, chain of command, graduated delegation and others. Thus, emphasis is put upon administrative leadership and motivation.

It is contended that the study of man as social animals, though in itself quite laudable cannot be considered to be part of the administrative science unless the resulting knowledge is particularly applicable to the ‘administrative man’. To this objection it is stated that the study of behavioural science, even though it may not involve observations peculiar to administration is likely to throw new light on administrative activity. Further it is maintained that the behavioural science has only been applied to and only appears to be valid for small social groups, whereas the study of public administration deals with large communities composed of many members. These show that the behavioural approach is a continuous process.

Barnard’s approach to organization can be called behavioural as he laid emphasis on the psychological aspect of management. His main works are in the field of organization, authority and motivation and functions of executive. He viewed organization basically as a social system. He defined formal organization as a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons. Organization can be divided into two parts: formal and informal. Both depend on each other and there is continuous interaction between the two. Barnard does not agree with the classical view that authority transcends from top to down. He has given concept of authority, which is termed as acceptance theory of authority.

Thus authority for him is character of communication. Barnard also propounded the theory of contribution satisfaction equilibrium. The satisfaction, which an individual receives in exchange for his contributions, may be regarded as inducement or incentive from organizational viewpoint.

Answer : Max Weber regarded bureaucracy as a universal social phenomenon and the means of carrying “community action” over into rationally ordered “social action”. Bureaucracy means “desk government” or management by bureaus denoting the sum total of the personal apparatus and procedures by which an organization manages its work and accomplishes its purposes.

Bureaucracy developed in the eighteenth and 19th centuries. It attained new heights in the 20th century despite the triumphs in several states of Marxist ideology, which seeks to eliminate it. Special factors necessitating the expansion of public bureaucracy are rapid increased in population, urge for social security, industrialisation, economic and social development and planning, nationalisation of industries etc.

Weber describes bureaucracy as “ a system of administration characterized by expertness, impartiality and the absence of humanity”.

However, bureaucracy has been severely criticized by eminent scholars. Its defects are circumlocution, red tape, formalism, and thirst for power. It is supposed to bring about a new despotism in our society. Bureaucracy is hierarchical, position-oriented and authoritarian in concept.]

Answer : The Human Relations theory or the neo-classical theory was built on the base of the classical theory, modifying it, adding to it and extending it. The Human Relation school of Administration was led by such eminent scholars as Elton Mayo, Dickson and others. Mayo and his colleagues conducted many experiments with human behaviour in organizations at the Hawthorne works of Western Electric Company in Chicago and found that output for workers was dependent not only on the physical conditions of work, but also on the recognition given to the workers by the management.

The Hawthorne experiments of Mayo were directed towards finding out why human cooperation could not be exactly and accurately determined by the administrative organization. Mayo concluded that workers respond to total work situation and that attitudes and social relations from an important part of this total. They found that the improvement in productivity was due to such social factors as morale, satisfactory interrelationships between members of a work group and effective management.

These experiments led to the increased emphasis on behavioural sciences as applied to management and to the recognition that managers operate in a social system. The Human Relation theory did underscore need for a greater and deeper understanding of the social and behavioural aspects of management. The Hawthorne experiments provided research evidence of the need to understand better human motivations and group reactions.

The classical theory is the beginning of the systematic study of organizations. Theclassical writers have viewed an organization as a machine and human being as different components of that machine. Their approach has focussed on input-output mediator and has given less attention to facilitating and constrating factors in the external environment.

Classical organization theory is based on the contribution of scientific management by Taylor and others, administrative management by Fayol and bureaucratic system by Weber.

The classical theory has been developed around four major factors. These are division of labour, scalar and functional processes, structures and span of control. These are known as classical pillars. The classical concept represents an important part of organization theory and give a clue about how to designan organization and manage it. The concepts have organized the fragmented thoughts in the area of management into a consolidated discipline to form a base for further development.

Many of the classical concepts hold valid even today and provide guidance for design of an organization. However, the classical theory has attracted a lot of criticism particularly from neo-classicists. The neo-classical theory has developed as a reaction to rationality and efficiency obsession of the classical theory, which failed to recognize the significance of the impact of human beings on organisation structure.

The neo-classical theory emphasises the task of complementing for some of the deficiencies in classical theory. This takes the postulates of classical model and modifies them to suit the needs of human beings in the organisation.

Human Relations theory emphasizes the informal organization while classical theory emphasizes the formal organization structure. Human Relations theory views organisation as an emotional and social system, advocates ‘social man’ view of workers, emphasises the sociological and psychological aspects of organization while classical theory views organization as an emotional and social system, advocates economic man, emphasizes the physiological and mechanical aspects of organisation.

Human relation theory believes that organisational behaviour is a product of attitudes, sentiments and feelings of employees while classical theory believes that organisational behaviour is a product of rules and regulations made by the management.

Again, human relation school assumes that people are heterogeneous while classical theory assumes people as homogeneous.

Answer : “Bureaucracy” is the term used to describe the administration in government characterized by red tape, rigidity and insensitivity. Historically, bureaucracy is a social invention perfected during the industrial revolution.

Weber considered the bureaucratic form of organization as the best method of organization for any social group, which has to coordinate the work of numerous persons whether in the public or private dominion. It is an impersonal routinised structure wherein legitimized authority rests in the office and not in the person of the incumbent. To bureaucracy is attributed such advantages as specialization structure predictability, stability, rationality and partial democracy.

But there are many sorts of malfunction in it like impartiality, routinised, resistance to changes, empire building, waste of resources etc. The greatest danger of bureaucracy is of its evading accountability.

Lord Hewart characterizes, the power and authority of Bureaucracy as new despotism jeopardizing even the liberties of citizens.

Answer : Barnard defined organization ‘as a system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons.’ Here he emphasizes on 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.

According to Barnard an individual is never willing to contribute his activities to a particular organization. Barnard strongly disapproves the concept of economic man and propounds the theory of contribution – satisfaction equilibrium. Contributions, which may be regarded in terms of organization as activities, are possible only when it is advantages to individual in terms of personal satisfaction.

Barnard says that if each man gets back only what he puts in there, is no incentive, that is, no net satisfaction for him in cooperation. What he gets back must give him advantage in terms of satisfaction; which almost always means return in a different form from what he contributes. Making and management, generating inefficiencies and preventing the specialists from exercising the full range of responsibilities normally associated with their problems.

To overcome these and also to remove the barriers that at present debar the specialists from reaching the top levels of management, wider outlets needs to be provided by suitably modifying the prevailing concept of ‘monopoly of generalism’ i.e. by encouraging liberal entry of specialists as administrative and policy functionaries at key levels.

Of late, certain measures have been taken in one country to induct specialist into higher administrative positions at the centre as well as in states. The Department of Atomic Energy has all along been headed by a nuclear scientist. Similarly, the Department of Space and Electronics also had technical persons as secretaries and so is the case with the Department of Science and Technology, which has a scientist as a Secretary. Scientific research organization and departments are also dominated by scientists.

The present need obviously is for more purposive development of professionalism in administration. The base of such professionalism is not necessarily provided by a single speciality but a variety of backgrounds and disciplines.

Barnard, while rejecting the viewpoint that man is mainly motivated by economic incentives analyses the multiplicity of satisfactions and identifies four specific inducement viz., (i) material inducement 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 service for family or others loyalty to organization and patriotism and aesthetic or religious feelings and the satisfaction of the motives of faith or revenge.

Barnard also mentions four types of ‘general incentives’. They are: (i) associated attractiveness based upon compatibility with associates; (ii) the adaptation 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 other a condition based upon personal comfort in social relations and the opportunity for comradeship and for mutual support in personal attitudes.

In discussing the relationship between the specific inducements, Barnard maintains that economic rewards are ineffective beyond the subsistence level. He also points out that the inducements cannot be applied mechanically, and their proportion depends on particular situations, times and individuals.

Answer : The decision-making is one of the most vital activity of the organization which determines the direction of progress of that organization. Most of the organization give it the highest priority in their functioning and this emphasis on decision making is not a wasteful activity. The researches on decision making have been going on right from the time when Public Administration itself was in the evolution stage. The first comprehensive analysis of the decision making process is given by Chester Barnard. He observed, “The processes of decision making are largely techniques for narrowing choices.”

After him, the most important scholar was Herbert A. Simon who gave a path breaking decision making theory which is relevant till now and which gave a new line of thinking to the Scholars on decision making. He defined decision making as “the optimum rational choice between alternative course of action.”

But now the decision making theory has been diversified. It is moving in so many directions that it becomes virtually impossible to understand what the actual theme was. Decision making according to Simon was the heart of organization process and it comprise three major phases named intelligence activity, design activity and choice activity. A person’s decision making depends up on the two premise of factual and values. The factual premises can be empirically validated whereas the value premises can not be validated.

These were the bases provided by Simon, but now the researches have been gone very deep and many new factors like legal limitations, budget facts, history, morale, future as anticipate, superiors, pressure groups, staff, nature of the programmes, working conditions, subordinates are considered in this process. With so many factors involving in the decision making process, it seems to become more complicated than it was once propounded by Simon.

In between so many factors the central focus seems to lost. Even decisions have got many types like routine Repetitive, Programmed and Non-programmed etc. There have been numerous techniques that are being devised to improve the decision making which includes operational research, organisational and mathematical analysis models, computer simulations, electronic data processes etc.

With so many researches that are going on with every single field of the decision making the complexity rises, which gives rise to diversion of focus. The focus should be on decision making as a basic administrative process, which was suggested by Barnard and Simon in a simplistic way. They both termed decision making as narrow downing of alternatives and then choice activity.

But with so many researches in this field it is hard to understand so many factors that involves in decision making and later their intricate relationship with one another. The study on decision making has become so vast that it will not be fare away when the decision making will be regarded as a sub-discipline of Public Administration.