module 4 discussion
Read the article Effective Public Management. The author makes an argument about applying business management principles to public organizations. Do you think this argument is still applicable? Why or why not?
Yourinitial response to this discussion should beat least 500 wordsin length. Be careful to cite sources appropriately.
35
3
A Br i ef Tour of Publ i c Or gani zat i on Theor y i n t he
Uni t ed St at es
Gary S. Marshall
Public administrative organizations in the United States rest on the twin pillars of management and
democracy. Because the management processes of public organizations are not solely instrumental but
involve the public interest, public agencies have to be more than mechanisms of rationality. Public
administrative action has both an instrumental quality, i.e., its capacity for optimal technical rationality
(technique), and a social qualityan underlying connection to the social bond between self and other.
With this backdrop, we begin the focus of this chapter which recounts the sociology of organizations with
an emphasis on key democratic moments in the history of American public administration. Before doing so,
we might ask how the central terms used in our discussion will be defined. What are organizations? For the
purposes of this chapter, organizations are the basic unit through which virtually all social relations are
formed in post-traditional society. In that sense, all social life is understood as organizational life (Denhardt,1
1981). Management, coterminous with any definition of organization, refers to the regularized relations
within organizations. As will be developed in the chapter, the rationalization of work led to formal and
informal relations within public organizations, and the management of those relations is the primary way in
which the term management is used here.
Democracy, literally rule of the people, is another term central to our discussion. As the books editor,
Richard Box, noted in the Introduction, The practice of public administration in the United States is set
within the context of a . On this point, our discussion of publicliberal-capitalist, representative democracy
organization theory reflects the dynamics of administrative institutions and their role within the general
processes of societal governance. The prevailing view of democracy in relation to twentieth- and
twenty-first-century public organizations is one of (Redford, 1969). That is, bothoverhead democracy
politicians and administrators are held accountable in a democratic society.2
A second important dimension in our discussion of democracy is the dramatic shift in the United States
from an agrarian to an industrial society. Industrialism in western societies led to the rationalization of work
and human relations with new forms of organization. Hence, the study of public administrative organizations
is grounded in a tradition of industrial democracy.
A final point about democracy as it relates to this chapter is workplace democracy: the participatory
dimension of internal organizational processes. Public organizations have been understood for the most part
as administrative systems characterized by top-down legal-rational authority. This formal structure
notwithstanding, the incorporation and practice of democratic principles and actions in the workplace have
also been present within the public organizational setting, dating back to the anti-federalist ethos of the
founding period of the U.S. Constitution.
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
0
7
.
R
o
u
t
l
e
d
g
e
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
M
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
i
n
a
n
y
f
o
r
m
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
a
i
r
u
s
e
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
U
.
S
.
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
w
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE
AN: 199747 ; Box, Richard C..; Democracy and Public Administration
Account: ecor.main.usg
36
Publ i c Or gani zat i ons and t he For gi ng of t he Admi ni st r at i ve St at e
After the Civil War, American society transitioned to its modern form. The economy underwent a basic
revision wherein regional monopolies disbanded and large corporate trusts developed. The political and
social conditions of this period have been well documented (Bailyn et al., 1977; Hofstadter, 1955; Link &
McCormick, 1983; McConnell, 1966; Wiebe 1967; Woll, 1977). The United States began to shift after 1830
from a predominantly agrarian society to an industrial society. By 1900, 40 percent of the American
population was located in urban centers such as New York, Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia (Bailyn et al.,
1977).
In addition, the structure of work changed. Bailyn et al. (1977) note that industrial technology, with its
emphasis on specialization and the division of labor, melded man into an instrument of the manufacturing
process. On the farm, the harvester replaced the scythe, and in the cities, machines and the technological
assembly line processes revolutionized whole industries, as the Bessemer process did for the steel industry.
Industrial and economic expansion occurred on all fronts, including mining, railroads, and industries in the
cities. The result of this economic expansion was that by the end of the century, the largest business interests
in each arenasteel, oil, agriculture, rail transport, and manufacturingconsolidated their market share to
the point of monopoly. Technological changes and developments signaled the end of the period of rural
democracy. This period of industrial expansion and subsequent consolidation created a set of diverse political
expectations and social conditions. On the one hand there were the unregulated interests and concentrated
economic power of the industrialists, and on the other hand there were the interests and distributed wealth of
individuals who were farmers, local merchants, and industrial workers.
Until the late 1880s, there was little movement for a national authority to regulate economic activity.
Rather, government had played a role in fostering economic development and as a result had a stake in
continuing to promote the interests of business. More important, the reigning assumption of the period was
that a natural economic equilibrium would occur independently of regulation. However, the social and
political conditions eventually put government in an awkward position. As Woll (1977, p. 39) notes: Having
fostered industries with subsidies of various kinds, both national and state governments had to contend with
political and social problems such as economic instability, deceptive business practices, and the growth of
monopolies that were directly attributed to the activities of groups that they originally supported.
The Et hos of Techni que
The field of public administration responded to the material requirements of a modern administrative state
required in the wake of industrial expansion. Between 1870 and 1930, the number of federal employees rose
from 73,000 to 700,000 (Mosher, 1975). During the period spanning from the turn of the century to 1935,
many changes and developments took place in the field. The Taft Commission on Economy and Efficiency
led the way for budget reform and an executive budget by 1921. The New York Bureau of Municipal
Research became a clearinghouse for new research in public administration. Specialized knowledge about
municipal governance was sought. The ideas generated from these reform efforts became known as the
bureau movement and represented the conviction that only through efficient government could progressive
social welfare be achieved . So long as government remained inefficient, volunteer, and detached, [any]
effort to remove social handicaps would continue a hopeless task (Mosher, 1981, p. 93).
The expanded role for public administrators was heralded by most because of their (1) subject matter
expertise, (2) continuity as civil servants, and (3) commitment to the public interest. In addition, their
application of scientific principles in the conduct of administration was seen as a positive step. It was
assumed that the scientific method employed by the administrator would bring both impartiality and progress
(better solutions through the ordered process of rationality) to an untenable situation. In their Papers on the
, Gulick and Urwick (1937, p. 49) wrote: There are principles which can beScience of Administration
arrived at inductively from the study of human organizations . These principles can be studied as a
EBSCOhost – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
37
technical question, irrespective of the enterprise. In an essay entitled Notes on the Theory of Organization,
Gulick articulated the principles of administration known by the acronym POSDCORBPlanning,
Organizing, Staffing, Directing, COrdinating, Reporting, and Budgeting.
The ethos of technique as evidenced by the above discussion dominated this period of research and
theorizing about public organizations. This emphasis on the technical character of administration did not
mean, however, that the democratic nature of public institutions had been foreclosed. Rather, it reflected the
predominantly Wilsonian view at the time that there ought to be a clear separation between politics and
administration. As Gulick wrote, the place of the administrator with his/her expertise is on tap, not on top
(Gulick, in Harmon & Mayer, 1986, p. 127). The view was that the United States would thrive as a
democracy if its strong political leadership was supported by administrative agencies with strong institutional
capacity.
Sci ent i f i c Management and Ear l y Or gani zat i on Theor y
The specter of scientific management and its emphasis on the instrumental, in retrospect, haunts the twentieth
century. But, in the first two decades of that century, efficiency was a word that portended apolitical social
change, scientific progress, and increased material wealth. During this period of industrialization and
modernization, bureaucracy and its corollary, scientific management, were understood as humane alternatives
to the autocratic patterns of earlier decades wherein there was little regard to safety and systematization of
work. The so-called rationalization of work allowed a heavy workload to be accomplished by the fewest
people in the most efficient way possible. As Weber (1991, p. 214) noted: The decisive reason for the
advance of bureaucratic organization has always been its purely technical superiority over any other form of
organization. The fully developed bureaucratic organization compares with other organizations exactly as the
machine with the non-mechanical modes of production.
Frederick Taylor, with his work at the Midvale and Bethlehem Steel companies, was the strongest
proponent of these ideas. Taylors efforts all focused on strategies to limit worker autonomy and individual
discretion in the production process in favor of a model that valued one best way to carry out a task as
determined by scientific expertise. His view of human nature portended the behavioral revolution in social
science. While one might not be able to fully explain peoples motives, one could direct their behavior
through economic motives and scientific expertise. Taylor held that man is an economic animal who
responds directly to financial incentives within the limits of his physiological capabilities and the technical
and work organization which is provided to him (Silverman, 1971, p. 176). A famous conversation between
Taylor and one of the Bethlehem workers found in the essay , gives onePrinciples of Scientific Management
a flavor:
What I want to find out is whether you are a high-priced man or one of those cheap fellows here whether you
want to earn $1.85 a day or are you satisfied with $1.15 just the same as all those cheap fellows. Oh youre
aggravating me. Of course you want $1.85everyone wants it . Well if you are a high-priced man, you will do
exactly as this man tells you to-morrow, from morning till night . And whats more, no back talk . Do you
understand that? (1947a, p. 45)
In Taylors view, man is not capable of accomplishing work without an expert to direct his/her behavior.
Hence, he calls for the one-best way of the scientific method. This reflects, in spite of Taylors lionizing of
the worker, a profound distrust in human beings. In his classic paper Shop Management, he wrote about the
social loafing of workers. This loafing or soldiering proceeds from two causes. First, from the natural
instinct and tendency of men to take it easy, which may be called natural soldiering. Second, from more
intricate second thought and reasoning caused by their relations with other men, which may be called
systematic soldiering (1947b, p. 30).
Not only did Taylor have disdain for subordinates, but for their superiors as well. He wrote extensively
about the indifference of employers to the plight of good management. Taylor sought to shift authority
from management to the expert, whose sphere of authority was legitimated through the planning departments
of organizations. As satirized in Chaplins , work processes are analogous to the pieces of aModern Times
mechanical clock. All the parts are discrete entities, some parts are more important than others, but in the
EBSCOhost – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
38
final analysis all fit together to make it work. In this analogy, the scientific expert plays the role of the
watchmaker.
Taylors legacy remains firmly in place today not only in his view of worker-management relations but
also in the form of systems from managerial accounting, organizational form and function, artificial
intelligence applications, and many other organizational systems. His approach required nothing less than a
mental revolution. As his testimony before a House Special Committee investigating the union strikes at the
Watertown Arsenal reflects:
Now, in essence, scientific management involves a complete mental revolution on the part of the working man
engaged in any particular establishment or industrya complete mental revolution on the part of these men as to
their duties toward their work, toward their fellow men, and toward their employers. And it involves the equally
complete mental revolution on the part of those on the managements sidethe foreman, the superintendent, the
owner of the business, the board of directorsa complete mental revolution on their parts as to their duties toward
their fellow workers in the management, toward their workmen, and toward all of their daily problems. And without
this complete mental revolution on both sides scientific management does not exist. (1947c, p. 27)
To summarize, scientific management reflects these four elements: organizations exist to accomplish
production-related and economic goals; there is one best way to organize for production, and that way can be
found through systematic, scientific inquiry; production is maximized through specialization and division of
labor; and people and organizations act in accordance with rational economic principles (Shafritz & Ott,
1996).
The Ear l y Human Rel at i ons Movement
But scientific management has never studied the facts of human social organization, it has accepted the 19th
century economic dictum that economic interest and logical capacity are the basis of the social order
(Henderson & Mayo, 2002, p. 311). This quotation, in an essay by L. J. Henderson and Elton Mayo, reflects
the assessment of a group of researchers at Harvard University who, in part due to Hendersons championing
of Vifredo Paretos concept of social equilibrium (Heyl, 1968), wrote about organizations as social systems.
The work of Henderson, Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Dickson at General Electrics Hawthorne Plant
represents an important development in the history of organization theory. These so-called early human
relationists sought to emphasize the interpersonal dimension of work life, i.e., the relationships that people
form with one another in the workplace and the meaning made through those relationships and work
experiences. The major point was that the underlying social bond between and among individuals is
extremely powerful and not necessarily malleable to the rapid changes that the technical dimension of the
organization projects upon it. A further quote from Henderson and Mayo makes this point quite well:
Now the social codes which define a workers relation to his work and to his fellows are not capable of rapid
change. They are developed slowly and over long periods of time. They are not the product of logic, but of actual
human association, they are based on deep rooted human sentiments. Constant interference with such codes is bound
to lead to feelings of frustration, to irrational exasperation with technical change of any form. (2002, p. 311)
These researchers brought into stark relief the disjuncture between the technical demands of the
organization and the rapidity of functional changes with regard to management processes within an
organization on the one hand, and the informal long-term social and psychic relationships of one human
being to another. This social dimension of human association had (has) a logic all its own that bears little
relationship to the functional or formal organizational design that is configured according to the goals,
objectives, and production processes of the organization. No doubt, the work itself is central to the group
dynamics of those working in the organization, but the functional relationships are in some sense artificial as
compared with the underlying social bond of those in the workplace. This social bond follows a
psychological path rather than a functional path.
The solution offered by the Harvard group might be labeled a benignly corporatist one. As Harmon and
Mayer note:
EBSCOhost – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
39
The thrust of these interpretations [by the Harvard group] is clear: The dissatisfied individual (the source of the
complaint) is to be manipulated by alterations in his or her position or status; this is achieved by manipulation, to the
extent possible, of the social organization, etc . Essentially, people are seen as socially motivated and controlled.
Any increase in morale (and therefore in productivity) is, thus, necessarily related to change in the human and social
conditions, not the physical or material condition. (1986, p. 101)
This perspective is more fully developed by Chester Barnard. Barnards book, The Functions of the
, is considered a classic in the organization theory literature. It builds on insights about the socialExecutive
dimension of organizational life and presents organizations as systems of cooperation that must be well
managed by the organizations leaders. Barnard writes:
A part of the effort to determine individual behavior takes the form of altering the conditions of behavior, including
a conditioning of the individual by training, by the inculcation of attitudes, by the construction of incentives. This
constitutes a large part of the executive process . Failure to recognize this position is among the most important
sources of error in executive work. (1968, p. 15)
Thus for Barnard the executive must act as sea captain, ready at the helm to guide the human
systemsformal and informalto propel the organizational vessel in the appropriate direction. This view
reinforced a top-down view of government institutions, wherein a responsive public executive ensured
democratically accountable administrative practices.
Mar y Par ker Fol l et t
The pioneering work of Mary Parker Follett represents an alternative perspective on knowledge that human
relationships are the central factor in organizational action. Although the compelling quality of Folletts work
went largely unheralded in her day, Follett is an important contributor to an understanding of the social
dimension of organizational life (Drucker, 1995). She lectured and wrote extensively and was a compatriot of
the members of the Harvard group. Like her colleagues, she saw social cooperation as an important and
underdeveloped criterion in the study of group processes. Follett however, did not see social cooperation as
merely a functional element of industrial organization. Rather, she saw it as evidence of the vital human bond
between people. In a word, social processthe process of relating to others, an engagement of social
experiencewas a prerequisite to all human action. For Follett, relationship is the primary unit of analysis
and the wellspring from which all else unfolds.
The social process is the interaction that occurs between human beings. It is in Folletts language the
having and digesting of social experience. This social process is the basis through which common agreement
and common action can be undertaken. As she notes: We have seen that the common idea and the common
will are born together in the social process . They complete themselves only through activity in the world
of affairs, of work and of government (Follett, 1995a, p. 247).
Writers who have championed Folletts work emphasize the integrative dimension of her approach. The
use of the term integrative refers to a key insight by Follett that human activity resists reduction to causal
analysis. In the Pavlovian stimulus-response equation, the response is not merely the activity resulting from
a certain stimulus and that response in turn influencing that activity; it is because it is response that it
influences that activity, that is part of what response means (Follett, 1995b, p. 41). Social relations are never
static. Rather, they are an evolving situationa situation of constant interdependent reciprocal influence. As
she notes:
In human relations I never react to you but to you-plus-me; or to be more accurate, it is I-plus-you reacting to
you-plus-me. I can never influence you because you have already influenced me; that is, in the very process of
meeting, by the very process of meeting, we both become something different. (Follett, 1995b, p. 42)
Integration refers to the constant integrating of experience. Social process then is a platform under which
all human process takes place, or more properly stated, evolves. Organizations are institutions of social
process wherein goal-directed behavior on the part of leaders, managers, supervisors, and workers does not
accurately account for the way in which events unfold. This basic approach serves as the grounding for all of
EBSCOhost – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
40
Folletts work, including her well-known analysis on the concept of power, the giving of orders, the law of
the situation, and the quality of twentieth-century democracy.
Central to this chapter is the view of the self as understood by the management theories under review.
Folletts perspective represents a radical departure because she posits the self as constantly in process,
constantly evolving. Such a view is diametrically opposed to the self as economic man: a rational calculating
being who knows what he wants or whose wants can be predicted. For Taylor, the worker was motivated by a
higher wage. For the early human relationists, workers were also social beings whose sentiments were to
be afforded a certain degree of attention in service of organizational productivity.
This emphasis on the interpersonal dimensions of organizational life paved the way for an increased study
of groups and group dynamics. Beginning with the work of Jacob Moreno, whose pioneering sociometric
methods gave researchers a way to analyze the patterns of verbal and non-verbal behavior in small groups,
group dynamics validated Folletts insight of a live social process beneath the formal structure of the
organization. More specifically, the insight of group dynamics is that groups are discrete entities that foster
behavior that would not occur otherwise.
Kur t Lewi n
Kurt Lewin is the best-known writer on the study of groups and the contribution of group dynamics to
organizational theory and organizational change. Why was his work so pivotal? First, like the early human
relationists, he championed the human dimension in the workplace. In Lewins earliest work as a researcher
at Berlin University, he demonstrated in his study of the work processes of Silesian textile workers that
technique based on manual dexterity the central claim of scientific managementwas not the overriding
factor in creating a productive workplace. Rather, when one considers total job demands, including the
intrinsic value of the work itself, the workers self-perception, and motivation and commitment, scientific
managements rigid criterion of technical competence was too narrow (Weisbord, 2004, pp. 8586).
In 1933, Lewin immigrated to the United States and began a fruitful period of research at the University of
Iowa, where he worked with the sociologist Margaret Mead among others. One of their key findings was that
organizational processes are more likely to succeed when the decision-making process is an inclusive one.
Mead and Lewin determined that to get families to eat other kinds of meats than the types subject to severe
rationing during World War II, so-called gatekeepers (typically moms in this case) needed to be a part of the
decision-making process. As Mead so famously noted: you cannot do things to people but only with them
(Mead, in Weisbord, 2004, p. 94). Their research demonstrated that meaningful inclusion in the
decision-making process leads to sustained organizational commitment.
While the notion of the group mind can be attributed to the work of Gustave LeBon and his famous
work (1982), Lewin pioneered the study of groups and the principleThe Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind
that feedback and therefore participatory processes were requisites to organizational productivity and success.
With the establishment of the National Training Laboratories (NTL) in Bethel, Maine, T-Groups or training
groups became a vehicle by which the ideas of participative management were disseminated into the
workplace. The current emphasis on teams in the workplace is a direct result of this work. Further, better
insights into group dynamics were developed as a result of the T-Group phenomenon, e.g., the stages of
group development.
Lewins legacy also lives on in the action research model of organizational analysis. Consistent with his
famous dictum there is nothing so practical as good theory, the action research model incorporates worker
feedback into its framework, particularly in the problem definition and clarification stages. Worker
participation is also central to the joint problem-solving and implementation stages of action research.
Lewins work is central to the sociology of organizations because he saw human beings as goal directed but
profoundly affected by the context.
The concept of workplace democracy can most directly be attributed to Lewin. His research showed that
democratic workplace processes, characterized by group goal setting and mutual feedback, led to stronger
task completion, synchronicity, and innovation. While he advocated participation (workplace democracy), he
EBSCOhost – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
41
was not an advocate of unstructured participation. Lewins field research showed that so-called laissez-faire
management (wrongly assumed to be democratic) led to drops in productivity far lower than the drops
demonstrated in long-terms studies of authoritarian management environments.
Her ber t Si mon and t he Rat i onal Model of Or gani zat i on
After World War II a refined discourse of rationalism and efficiency took hold in conjunction with the
technological innovation occurring after the war. Early in the twentieth century, in the social sciences,
science was essentially understood as a rationalizing technology, that is, making systems work more
efficiently by ordering the processes to accomplish maximum output using the least resources. Technical
solutions were very appealing given the scale of the changes that occurred in the wake of industrial
expansion, the Great Depression, and two World Wars.
As gains in natural science took hold, there was a push by social scientists to effect the same rigor in the
social sciences. As Denhardt notes:
In keeping with the general scientism of the period, many political scientists felt their earlier studies of government
institutions lacked the rigor (and therefore, presumably the dignity) of work in such real sciences as physics and
chemistry. To correct the situation, they argued on behalf of an approach to science based on the philosophical
perspective of logical positivism. This approach held that regularities in human behavior, as in the behavior of
physical objects, could be determined by the careful and objective observation of exhibited (or manifest) behavior
and that scientific theories could be logically derived from such observations. Just as one could observe the behavior
of molecular structures, and then develop theories concerning physical life, so it was argued, one could observe the
behavior of human beings from the outside, then develop theories concerning social life. (2004, p. 68)
This led to a push toward a so-called science of administration. A major contributor to such an approach
was Herbert A. Simon. Simons book shaped the post-World War II view ofAdministrative Behavior
organizations. In his famous article The Proverbs of Administration, he trivialized as nave the
management theory of the early twentieth century. Probably the most significant effect of Simons work was
that prior to (1976), theorists sought to control work processes. After Simon,Administrative Behavior
theorists sought to control decision processes. Using behaviorist methods, if one could predict and control
human behavior in organizations, then one could predict and create successful organizational outcomes.
The crucial argument made by Simon is that one should design theories of organization to focus only upon
the so-called rational component of the mind. That is, what is most predictable about human behavior is our
capacity to be rational: to act with conscious intention. Simon later went on to show how decision support
systems and artificial intelligence models could enhance the vital but limited capacity of humans to act
rationally. As Denhardt notes in a quotation from Simon: The rational individual is, and must be, an
organized and institutionalized individual (2004, p. 74).
The prototype for Simon was . Denhardt recounts a definition for us:administrative man
The classical utility-seeking economic man is replaced by a more modern and more institutionalized
administrative man: administrative man accepts the organizational goals as the value premises of his decisions, is
particularly sensitive and reactive to the influence upon him of other members of his organization, forms stable
expectations regarding his own role in relation to others and the role of others in relation to him, and has high morale
in regard to organizational goals. (2004, p. 76)
The acceptance of organizational goals as value premises is and has been a controversial point. Which
trumps which when the values of efficiency and democracy collide? Simon attempted to finesse this vital
debate by suggesting a separation between policy and administration. He argued that the administrators task
is to optimally implement the stated policy directions that have been democratically decided upon by the
elected representatives of government. Such an argument avoids the artificial nature of such a split, as
administration is clearly governance. In addition, it is hard to argue with Dahls (1947) point that the
application of the value of efficiency as an overriding criterion in the conduct of administration is a policy
decision in its own right. Both Dahl and Dwight Waldo (1948; 1952) sought to refute Simons push for an
administrative science that discounted the normatively democratic character of public administration.
EBSCOhost – printed on 6/16/2020 12:02 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
42
This period in the history of t
