SLIDES

~$Week 2 Lecture (01.17.2013) (1)

Theory and Reorganization

Bureaucratic Dysfunctions – Week 3

KETTLE ARTICLE, 2000

In 1993, the author analyzed the state of public administration for the American Political Science Association’s book, Political Science: The State of the Field. This article reviews the state
of public administration at the start of the new millennium: the
field’s big theoretical questions, enduring theoretical ideas, and
its unanswered theoretical puzzles. In the middle of the twentieth
century, public administration found itself under attack by both
academics and practitioners for theory that provided only weak
guidance. New approaches developed in the last third of the century—notably formal theory, network theory, and the “new public
management”—have helped bridge the gap. In the end, however,
the field’s enduring problems are rooted deeply in historic conflicts in the American political tradition. These conflicts make it
unlikely that the field will ever be able to escape the struggles
that have long bedeviled it. But an understanding of the ways
political tradition shapes administrative theory—and of the ways
that administrative theory bring political traditions to life—helps
provide keen insight into the theoretical issues that matter most.
At the beginning of the new millennium, public administration sits squarely in an historical paradox. It is a proud parent,
both intellectually and organizationally, of the professional study
of administration. The modern American state owes its basic
structure and processes to the contributions public administration
made. On the other hand, scholars are fighting over its identity,
relevance, and focus. Meanwhile, practicing administrators who
once would not have dreamed of launching a new program or
restructuring an old one now often press boldly ahead without
seeking the field’s counsel. Within both the academic and public
7/Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryPublic Administration at the Millennium
policy communities, public administration is struggling to reassert
its former intellectual predominance and redefine its foundations.
Public administration builds from a self-evident importance.
Bold policy ideas cannot go far without solid implementation.
Elected officials the world over are seeking to reinvent and
otherwise reform their bureaucracies because government performance has become even more politically crucial. Administration has, at least since Moses, been important (Wildavsky 1984).
It has become only more central since. If spiraling social complexity has made government and its administration even more
important, what ideas ought to guide the task of making government work? And if the field’s driving ideas seem out of sync
with the needs of government managers and with the dominating
approaches of its related disciplines, what—if anything—should
be done to change public administration’s theories?

readings 6

The two readings present cyclical approaches of organizations and highlight the importance of the external environments in which they operate. In “Organizations and the System Concept,” Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn describe social organizations as open systems, dependent on relationships and the external environment for new energy, while also using stored energy to combat entropy and perpetuate the cycle. In “The Life Cycle of Bureaus,” Anthony Downs discusses the bureau maturation process and the initial autonomy and fervor that must be obtained for existence. Creating a niche, building on momentum, and combatting personnel turnover are critical for bureau survival.

            Katz and Kahn begin by denouncing the assumptions used by social scientists to understand organizations. Instead of using the name of an organization to infer its purpose and assuming goals were initiated by the originators and deemed legitimate by current administrators, the open system model requires a review of the inputs since there is no closed social structure and organizations depend on material, capital, and information exchange with its environment. These particular inputs are transformed and the return from these transformations (outputs) are used to recharge the system and is reflective of the open systems theory used by von Bertalanffy.

            Katz and Kahn assert that the open system concept is resilient due to the ability to obtain entropy, create specialization, utilize feedback, and arrive at an end state by alternate means.  The ability to store and retain excess positive energy is a critical component to fend off the natural tendencies of organizations to spiral towards disorganization. Much like an animal acquiring energy reserves in preparation for hibernation, social organizations build up a safe margin of operation critical for its survival. One of the major components throughout the entire essay is the high degree of elasticity found in open systems. Initial conditions can vary significantly but an open system uses multiple paths to reach the same end product.

            In “The Life Cycle of Bureaus,” Downs states that the initial phase of bureaus is dominated by zealots who have identified a need and advocate for a change. The author focuses on the importance of bureaus to establish a niche during its infancy to establish autonomy. Rapid organization, generation of external support, and the establishment of a market with clear jurisdiction and beneficiaries are crucial for bureaus to attain their ‘initial survival threshold’. A fast-growing bureau is typically reflective of innovative and aggressive personnel seeking promotion and expansion.

            Significant growth can only continue for an indefinite time before several factors slow momentum. The bureau size and scope strain planning and coordination, and the once aggressive and innovative minds shift from execution into more administrative duties and politics that ultimately reduce efficiency. Talented personnel may leave for other opportunities and bureaus have to absorb less talented personnel in order to fulfill additional expansion. A conservative mindset becomes apparent in mature bureaus, and the “Age Lump” phenomenon can plague established bureaus as its ranks are comprised roughly of the same age group that are less innovative and more conservative. The risk of losing continuity is high as this cohort moves into retirement, which the United States is experiencing currently with the Baby Boomer generation. What are the potential losses in continuity as the Baby Boomer generation is phasing out of the workforce?

The two presented articles have some unique similarities as both represent a cyclical approach that rely heavily on external factors. Katz and Kahn focus on the transformation of the external environment and the considerable fluctuation and leeway that the system concept embraces. In contrast, Downs’ article emphasizes the critical early stages of growth, the external factors that influence the tremendous initial growth rate and factors that impede mature bureaus. The bureau lifecycle draws from empirical experience of these external influences to generate rules and structure. The notion of change is embraced in the system concept, but the dynamics of bureaus shift with age and gravitate towards conservatism and stability. Is a flexible approach or a structured approach more apt to complete organization objectives?

Another recurrent theme of each cycle is the struggle to thwart off disorganization. The tendency for productivity to wane exists and the system concept imports more energy than it can expend, creating a natural buffer and increasing its survival chances. A multitude of forces bear down on bureaus throughout the entire cycle. The initial fight to gain autonomy gives way to personnel turnover and losses in efficiency. Mature bureaus are typically large, diverse organizations that can utilize beneficiaries to create the image of significant value to society if their usefulness is in question. What metrics should be used to evaluate a bureau and at what juncture should a bureau dissolve or be absorbed by another?

 

 

 

 

           

            

readings 5

SH #2:  Frank J. Goodnow, “Politics and Administration” 

Goodnow’s article discusses the strain and immense difficulty in managing the will of the state and the execution of that will.  He begins by stating that there are three branches of government which apply and form the law, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial.  He continues by saying that the foundation of our government in this way is limiting and is part and parcel the reason for agonized gridlock and over utilization of all branches.  Meaning that, the constant flow in and out of politically elected or appointed officials in an administration does not allow for efficient and well organized decisions or continuity.  In this manner, he then asserts that there should not be the conventional 3 branches, but that there should be two branches, Politics and Administration.  He asserts that our elected officials are set in place to articulate and make known the will of the state; he calls this “politics”.  Conversely, officials and other responsible entities in our government are prescribed the handling of the enforcement and action in making sure the will is enacted.  This is the “administration”.  The administration is cited with the technical aspects of government.  Goodnow argues that politics and administration can never be separated in our society and that the administrative pieces should play second fiddle to the political side, since the will of the state is the guiding light.  In this vein, politics serves only to express the will of the people.   The argument for advocating this is to release the administration from the bindings of politics and to ensure that the work continues regardless of who may be in political power.  Put the experts in their field in control of administration, and leave the politics to be fluid like the minds and will of the state.    Additionally, Goodnow suggests that the judicial powers of government should reside in the administrative part, free of the burdens of the political battlefield and on point to decide policy on a constitutional level without the need to sway the will of the state. He found administration of justice needed to be autonomous of political winds in the same way management of the system did.  This was a highly progressive idea, which is even more relevant today with the limited approvals of Supreme Court justices during a Presidency.  He surmised that judges should be interpreters of the constitution, and designers of law, not pawns in a political chess game.  In the end, this system removes bias and influence from the effective management of an executive system, be it large of small. 

SH:  #31: H. George Frederickson, “ Toward a New Public  Administration” 

In contrast to Goodnow, Frederickson conveys the needs for the social conscience in the administration of an executive branch of government.  Frederickson argues for social equity to be the guiding principal of administration and the decision making leader of the political process.  Public administration is the coordinated management of the services for efficiency in implementation.  The concentration has been on management from the top to the bottom.  The old mantras may suggest that we work within a budget to provide the maximum value for the bottom dollar, but the New Public Administration asks us to seek social equity in that equation.  NPA charges administrators to seek equity in their constituents first and foremost as they apply new ideas and executive actions.    The main avenues to consider for the NPA are:  1.The Distributive Process, which deals with the external distribution of goods.  2.  The Integrative Process, which seeks to remove hierarchical systems and put in places teams to get work done effectively.  3. The Boundary Exchange Process, which allows for special team to work in areas where bureaucracy already exists to assist in completing jobs.  4.  The Socio emotional process which includes lowering an individual’s reliance on hierarchy, enabling him to tolerate conflict and emotions, and prepare him to take greater risks.  At the end of this lies the chance for Public Administration to become more of “change agent” in the world by effectively advocating for those that politics leave marginalized.  The social equity piece would allow those who are at the fringes of society in terms of safety, education, protection and health care to be brought onto an even playing field by fair minded administrators who truly advocate for “all men are created equal”. 

 

Discussion Questions:

1.  Does Goodnow seem to suggest that big government is the best form of government while also suggesting that the design of our democracy and the Constitution stand in the way of letting it work effectively?
2. How does an executive effectively manage an organization that has constant turnover and very little institutional memory, like that of the President, a Governor or a mayor?  What are the benefits to appointing your own team and the downsides of the same? 
3. Is the role of a public administrator to carry out the will of the state, or the will of their executive, or both, or neither?  And, in what way does being a public servant mean public service is your priority? 

 

readings 3

SH#39: Allison: “Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?”

 

            Public Management has three basic core elements: Policy Management, Resource Management, and Program Management.  Policy Management is the identification of needs, analysis of options, selection of programs, and allocation of resources.  Resource Management is the establishment of basic administrative support systems, such as, budgeting personnel management.  Program Management is the implementation of policy or daily operation of agencies carrying out policy along functional lines.

            Alternative core elements include: workforce planning, collective bargaining and labor management relations, productivity and performance management, among others.  A lack of empirical research and very little readily available data on what public managers do allows for each of these core elements and alternatives to be interpreted differently. This hinders an academic comparison of similarities and differences between public and private management. 

            Planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting are all elements of public management that are also found in private management.  Both strategize by establishing objectives and priorities and devise operational plans to meet them.  Both have internal components and external constituencies that must be managed in order to meet objectives.  Organizing, staffing, directing personnel, and controlling performance are all internal components.  Dealing with external units or sub-agencies, independent organizations, and the press and public include external constituencies.

            Although public and private management are similar in many ways, they couldn’t be more different in others.  Public management has a much shorter time horizon which is dependent on the political machine, while private management focuses more on long term product development and technological advances.  The length of service of public managers is relatively short compared to private managers who may even groom a perspective successor for years.  Public managers have very elusive measurements of performance, while the private sector has the economy and bottom line.  Public management has personnel that are often times at odds with each other:  political appointees and civil servants.  While the private sector focuses on efficiency and competitive performance, public managers focus on equity.  The public process is open-door while the private process is usually closed-door.  The press treats the public sector with much more coverage as compared to the private sector.  Public managers do more persuading where private managers do more directing. 

It all comes down to a constitutional difference between private management and public management.  Private management is centralized around a single person who has authority with responsibility; in contrast, public management is spread among competing institutions which prevents absolute power.  In order to better implement public management, we must develop case studies, analyze them, promote systematic comparative research, and link the findings to the training of public managers.

SH# 16: Weber: “Bureaucracy”

 

            A bureaucracy consists of fixed and official jurisdictional areas.  The regular activities of the bureaucracy are its official duties.  The authority is distributed stably and plainly defined by rules.  There must be a methodical provision made for regular fulfillment of duties.  There must be an office hierarchy with levels of graded authority.  Lower offices are supervised by higher offices which can appeal errant decisions.  Management is based on written documents in their original form.  Office management is thorough and comprises expert training.  Official activity demands the full working capacity of an official only when the bureaucracy is fully developed.

            The position of the official is a vocation with the nature of a duty.  Faithful management is exchanged for job security.  The official is not a person, but is impersonal and whose functional purpose contains an idea of culture-values.  The personal position comes with social esteem gained through education and social standing (more so in Europe than America).  The official is appointed by a superior authority based upon technical qualities.  The position is held for life, but not as a right given by those at the top.  Normal salary, pension, and benefits are determined by status-rank or length of service.  The career is within the hierarchy.  Climbing through the hierarchy is based on seniority or expert examinations.           

SH# 12: Merton: Bureaucratic Structure and Personality

Bureaucracy is structured on the merit of technical efficiency which fosters consistency, speed, expert control, continuity, discretion, and optimal returns on input.  These traits can only be fostered in a culture of impersonalization through the categorization of cases that meet specific criteria.  Bureaucracies control the tools that officials use in order to work.  It separates the individuals from the instruments.  Those instruments consist of rules and regulations that officials must follow to perform their job.
            The strict adherence to the rules set by the bureaucracy can create “trained incapacity” or “occupational psychosis”.  This happens when an effective bureaucracy demands a strict devotion to the regulations, which, in turn, transform the rules to absolutes.  This makes an official’s ability to adapt to special circumstances and situations very difficult.  Ironically, the push for efficiency can sometimes lead to inefficiency.

The depersonalization that is so critical to the effective function of a bureaucracy can strain primary (client, personal) and secondary (formal, impersonal) relationships.  The inability to treat a unique individual case outside of the standard categorization can come off as arrogance and haughtiness.  The bureaucratic structure itself can also strain primary and secondary relationships.  Officials are seen as a representative of the power of “the system” which can bring the appearance of a domineering attitude.

Questions:

 

(1)  As public administration careers become more unionized and lucrative as pay and benefits increase, while private sector jobs deunionize and struggle in a down economy, do the personality traits that Merton cite still eclipse the basic human traits of greed, self-interest, and power?

(2)  Over time, has the American Public Management esteem evolved closer to or farther from the European standard that Weber uses?

 

readings 2

Organizational Theory-

The following four articles present increasingly complex approaches to organizational theory beginning with Frederick Taylor’s relatively simple approach at the turn of the last century to more complex approaches in the contemporary period. The first article, Taylor’s “Scientific Management,” provides an important point of departure for organizational theory. Taylor argues that developing the right system through scientific principles is far more important for productivity than simply giving workers large incentives to work their hardest and with good will. To implement a new scientifically based system, Taylor maintains that management must: 1) replace workers’ old rules of thumb with a science for each part of a man’s work, collect data, analyze information and frame laws and rules, 2) scientifically train and select each worker,  know their character, nature and limitations in order to allow opportunities for advancement and reach the greatest level of efficiency, 3) cooperate with workers to ensure that duties are carried out scientifically, and 4) divide work and responsibility almost equally between management and workers instead of assigning too much of both to workers.

The second article by Luther Gulick entitled “Notes on the Theory of Organization” builds upon Taylor’s analysis by developing a more comprehensive framework for understanding the management implications of the division of work. Gulick refers to Taylor as a “great philosopher of management” and claims that work division is the foundation of organization and the reason for it, developing a broader framework in three parts. The first concerns the reasons for division of work as well as its limitations, which is similar to Taylor’s approach, but more rigorous and thorough in treatment. The second part concerns the need for coordination of work which is subdivided and the complementary ways to achieve this coordination in terms of hierarchy on one hand and a self-guided team in which everyone’s mind and will has the same purpose on the other. Here Gulick corrects some of Taylor’s recommendations regarding unity of command, the lack of which creates confusion and inefficiency, and examines issues related to span of control. He also points out the danger of technical experts assuming authority in fields where they have no competence, leading to inefficiency. The third part concerns organizational patterns and the view of the organization as both a subdivided enterprise under the chief executive (top-bottom), as well as an aggregation of units which are subordinated to the chief executive (down-up). Gulick concludes that the work of the executive is planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting (POSDCRB), once again advancing over Taylor’s initial theory.

One of the most interesting issues that Gulick raises early-on, but does not sufficiently follow through with is the question of wholes and parts. This has crucial implications for assessing organizational culture, a concept introduced in the final article to which we shall return.

The third article by Herbert Simon entitled “The Proverbs of Administration” draws on four administrative principles that Gulick and others accept to show that administrative theory has been run by proverbs which are often unclear, self-contradictory, and indeterminate. This is anything but the “Scientific Management” suggested in Taylor’s title. The four widely accepted principles that Simon selects for examination are: 1) specialization, 2) unity of command, 3) limiting the span of control, and 4) organization by purpose, process, clientele, and place. Simon applies the tools of economic analysis to public administration, examining the inherent trade-offs within and between such widely accepted principles. For example, Simon shows that limiting the span of control on one hand and minimizing levels of the hierarchy for fast decision-making on the other each have benefits, but are contradictory, forcing trade-offs and requiring cost-benefit analysis to resolve.

He also introduces the crucial role of bounded rationality, or limits on the amount of information and computational ability that decision-makers have. Simon describes these limitations in terms of: 1) individual skills, habits, and reflexes which are no longer in the realm of the conscious, 2) values and those conceptions of purpose which influence decision-making, and 3) the extent of knowledge of things relevant to one’s job. Gulick and Taylor failed to properly recognize and address the role of bounded-rationality in organizational theory, as well as inherent trade-offs between accepted administrative principles, making Simon’s article a major contribution to the literature.  

The final article by J. Steven Ott entitled “Understanding Organizational Culture” fundamentally challenges the presuppositions of the preceding analyses and adds a new level of methodological complexity to the literature. Ott argues that in order to apply the appropriate theory of organization, one must understand first the culture of an organization. He claims that existing organizational theories exclude qualitative measures that are needed to describe, explain, and predict behavior when organizations are facing fundamental changes or radical changes. An organizational culture perspective also helps understand other organizational phenomena and behavior like loyalty, leadership, creativity, and survival strategies. Ott recognizes that this approach has problems and limitations, since it is not necessarily the key for understanding all the complexities of organizations, and disagreement about basic issues within this perspective creates doubts about its legitimacy. Nevertheless, Ott calls for the integration of mainstream organizational theories, which assume that organizations are rational and goal-oriented institutions relying only on quantitative analytical methods, with the organizational culture perspective which includes less tangible assumptions, values, and beliefs.

In this sense, Ott provides a very interesting response to Simon, Gulick, and Taylor. If organizational culture is a whole greater than the sum of its parts, then it does not lend itself to the type of analysis that these earlier scholars promote. Accordingly, Ott’s article suggests a major methodological development in public administration literature.

From this perspective, Simon is correct in arguing that trade-offs are important in public administration, and that any proverb must be internally consistent, but how do we know that there is only one solution in managing these trade-offs given the possibility of different organizational cultures? How does Simon explain the conditions under which his approach applies and when it does not apply? In short, is Simon’s approach another proverb? Similarly, does the division of labor that Simon, Gulick, and Taylor espouse change organizational culture? Does this introduce other trade-offs, and if so, how does one manage them? Finally, if Ott is correct in calling for a more integrated approach to organizational theory, how does one put these different methodologies into a coherent framework? All these questions are important areas for future research and discussion.

 

from readings 1

SH#4: “Scientific Management” by Frederick Taylor

            This reading is an excerpt of Frederick Taylor testifying in front of the United States House of Representatives in the early part of the 20^th century. The testimony begins with what seems to be persuasive dialogue of Taylor trying to convince members of Congress about how scientific management can be very successful with proper implementation and enough time elapsing. He also claims that scientific management produces better results than “initiative and incentive” management style which is when a large incentive is given to workers to motivate the best of their abilities. This is because scientific management has workers performing at high efficiency and voluntarily accepting responsibilities and duties. These duties and responsibilities which workers assume on their own accord are classified in four categories known as the “The Principles of Scientific Management.” The first is the-rule-of-thumb knowledge of workmen is replaced with science; meaning that management should scientifically study the knowledge. The second principle is to scientifically select, train, and develop the workers. This allows a higher degree of performance and chance for advancement for employees. Taylor asserts the third principle is “bringing the science and the scientifically selected together.” This can be understood as the scientific knowledge from the first principle and the people from the second principle together to be able to fully train and develop workers. The fourth principle is equally dividing the work between management and workers. This should help reduce tensions between the two parties, and allow for smooth function organization where all parts understand what is to be done.

SH#9 “Notes on the Theory of Organization” by Luther Gulick

            This reading by Luther Gulick is in regards to the theory of organization in dealing with many people, their division of labor, and the coordination of that labor. Division of labor allows for work processes to be more efficient and promotes specialization. The division is usually based on skill and aptitude of the workers; the skill is “evolves” naturally from the materials handled. According to Gulick, the natures of the subdivisions are “subject to a gradual evolution with the advance of science, the invention of new machines, the progress of technology and the change of the social system. There are three limits to dividing labor. The first is if the further subdivision in work results in inactivity of a worker. If no more than one person is needed to accomplish the task, it is not worth dividing the labor further. The second limitation is based off of customs and technology at a given time and place. There may be external forces that make subdivision problematic, and should be avoided.  The third limitation is that subdivision should not pass into beyond physical division into organic division. It is not wise to separate intricately related tasks or single movements. Subdivision, when undertaken must consider if the parts that make up the whole are not compromised in their relationship to the whole and the central design. A specialist in planning is vital when dividing up tasks among skilled specialists; a person is needed to coordinate the efforts and follow a plan. According to Gullick, coordination can be achieved two ways; by organization and dominance of an idea. By organization means, that the subdivisions are established in a structure of authority, the coordination occurs from the top to the bottom. Dominance of an idea is creating a collective mind, the group of skilled workers work together towards accomplishing a goal. Time and scope can be limiting factors in establishing coordination. Another important aspect of coordination being successful is habit. If a routine is developed into a step by step process issues can be identified and dealt with. A central idea of the theory of organization is to establish a structure of authority between directors and work subdivisions. This structure of authority empowers the director to coordinate and motivate the subdivisions so major goals can be achieved in an efficient manner. Span of control over subordinates diminishes as specialization increases. There may be a need for more directors a large number of specialized workers to achieve the objective. Another important point to be note is that a person cannot have more than one boss; it leads to confusion and hinders the coordination process. Technical efficiency is achieved through unity from top to bottom and with technical direction given by a qualified expert individual. Similar function should work together in accomplishing the goals, as Gulick states: principle of homogeneity. The organizational pattern is important to recognize, whether it is top-down or bottom-up. Top down seems to be theoretically more feasible in coordinating and subdividing. Gluick introduces the acryonym, PODSCORB, in how to organize the executive. The acronym is what defines the work of an executive. PODSCORB stands for planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.

 

SH#16 “The Proverbs of Administration” by Herbert Simon

            This reading by Herbert Simon is to validate the criticisms of administrative theory and to provide some suggestions. The first principle of administrative theory discussed is that administrative efficiency is increased by specialization of the task among the group. Simon states that this principle is a “deceptive simplicity” and that it hides fundamental ambiguities. He states that specialization means that different people are doing different things regardless if it is efficient or not. The administration should specialize in a manner and along the lines that will promote efficiency. Simon rephrases the first principle in stating “Administrative efficiency is increased by a specialization of the task among the group in the direction which will lead to greater efficiency.” The second principle discussed is the unity of command. The principle states administrative efficiency is increased by arranging the members of the group in a determinate hierarchy of authority. Simon thinks that the second principle is incompatible with the first principle. This is because the experts who are specialized will not be able to make an informed decision based on their knowledge but instead rely on their superiors to make the decision instead who may not have the expertise or knowledge.  This may lead to controversy and confusion. The second principle is more clearly defined and states “in case two authoritative commands conflict, there should be a single determinate person whom the subordinate is expected to obey; and the sanctions of authority should be applied against the subordinate only to enforce his obedience to that one person.” Simon still believes that is restated second principle still conflicts with first principle of specialization. Span of control is the third principle discussed. Large organizations with a restricted span of control will have to deal with multiple levels until a common superior is found to deal with an issue between different groups or members; it becomes a time consuming process. Conversely, expanding the span of control will allow for more people to be under the authority of one supervisor, but the strength of the authority will be weakened by adding too many subordinates. Simon believes that the principle in its current form does not provide any help on how the span of control should be limited. The fourth principle increases efficiency by grouping workers according to purpose, process, clientele, or place. Simon feels that advantages of the three of these will be sacrificed in attaining the advantage of the fourth. An organization must decide which of the four components of the last principle they should organize around. Ideas from the four principles can be used to guide the organization, but the overall guiding factor should be organizational efficiency. Simon finally offers an approach to administrative theory. The first task is to develop concepts that will allow the description to be relevant to the theory. Science should be employed to find empirical data to support facts. The next step is to identify what are the rational limits in achieving administrative efficiency; what can be a hindrance in achieving top efficiency and develop criteria in assessing performance. The final step is to assign weights to the criteria developed in the second step, to give a level of importance to the different criteria.

 

SH#48 Understanding Organizational Culture by J. Steven Ott

            The final reading for this week is in regards to organizational culture. Organizational culture is the culture that exists within an organization, and it is also the way of looking at and thinking about behavior of and in organizations. It can be used as a method to predict how people and the organization will respond to different situations. Organizational culture theory is controversial because it is based on assumptions. It rejects the modern and structural schools’ assumptions and asserts that organizational behaviors and decisions are based upon basic assumptions already existing within the organization. It can be assumed that the belief of the culture becomes part of subconscious due to repeated use. This perspective also is not limited by formal authority or rules but instead cultural norms, beliefs, and values. Ott goes on to assert that traditional research methods cannot properly measure the effectiveness of an organizational culture; it cannot be measured by mainstream ideals and beliefs. This organizational culture perspective is useful in predicting behaviors to fundamental changes as well as explaining other behaviors such as employee commitment, loyalty, leadership, creativity, and innovation. This perspective is a great way to look at an organization as a whole. This rather new perspective has its limitations and problems. It is one of many ways an organization can be evaluated, and the field of study is relatively young. Another weakness is that this rather new field of study requires analysis of many different academic disciplines to fully understand what creates a culture. The organizational culture perspective still needs time to develop before it reaches its full potential. Once it is understood what defines the culture, then behaviors can be predicted. Ott states: “Organizational culture is here to stay. It serves necessary purposes. People in organizations need culture for identity, purpose, feelings of belongingness, communication, stability, and cognitive efficiency.

            All four readings main purpose is to elaborate on methods of increasing efficiency and productivity within an organization. It seems to be a progression through time; beginning with scientific management and ending with the newest field of the organizational perspective. It is very interesting to see the natural progression of how management has moved forward building upon itself. Taylor’s scientific management seemed to remove the human element from the equation and was based purely on empirical information. Gulick used parts of the scientific management in his theories for public administration and had an emphasis on dividing labor through specialization to increase efficiency. Simon improved upon Gulick’s theories. Ott’s perspective seemed to be the most radical but also focused the most of the human aspect. The human aspect seemed to be an important part that was missing from its predecessors. This aspect is ideal to be used in the “evolution” management theory and public administration. Focusing on the individuals and empowering them will lead to an increase in efficiency and attainment of goals. The ideas posed in these readings should not accepted at face value and should be questioned for their validity, that is the only way ideas and theories can progress and be improved upon.

ESSAY QUESTION # 1

Wilson suggests that academia should determine what gov-t should do, how it should do, and how to do it best with least money and energy spent.

Administration is the government in action but nobody wrote about it before (systematically). Administration is a branch of government and that is why it is important to define it and develop a discipline out of it. Only constitution was analyzed before, as well as the nature of the American society – because that is where the problems were. There were no problems with administration until now, said Wilson. Population was small, manageable. Wilson suggests that we use German and French science of public administration – only twist it to fit American spirit and our complex government. Wilson describe 3 periods of growth developed countries from kings to constitutions with the middle transitional point inbetween. America has reached 3^rd period- the time has come to creat admin systems, but it’s going to be very hard because we have public opinion that we have to respect. How to successfully go thru the needed changes tho? You first convince peope that we need change. Then convince them that a specific change is needed.

Gov-t should reach to the communities of different  ethnical backgrounds, know their specific opinions, know their history and take everything into consideration.

The subject matter of the admin. Study is that administration lies outside of politics, although politics sets tasks for it. But it should not manipulate admin offices. It is the law that matter – the proper distribution of constitutional authority.

Methods? Think of all the work Germany and France has done. Take that as a body, but keep the American heart as free – but based on constitution. We should filter theories. All governments have the same bodily structure that’s why we can use other countries’ models. Use historical comparative method to study p.a. and base it on our democracy.

The study of A. started shaping itself since Wilson first presented his work (and public speech) in 1887. Wilson wanted to separate politics from Administration, establish efficiency within our democratic legislature, and introduce methods for studying P.A. (positivist versus normative methods).

Wilson believed that dichotomy would better governmental management. Later in the 20^th century Goodnow used Wilson’s ideas in new progressive reforms to improve the quality of the American government, especially on a local level.

Webber continued Wilson’s ideas in 1930s to promote efficiency in bureaucratic agencies (planning, organizing, coordinating, reporting) – this created a base for positivists arguments (pro chierarchical control) in terms of efficiency of government. Waldo in 1940s studied organizational theories including the behavioral factor into public administration. He was against positivists theory and argued that organizations should have a democratic relationships among the leaders and followers. This is when they started applying a humanistic approach in studying public organizations and using the notion that workers need to be encouraged. Workers should also be engaged in the process, not just controlled – 1960s.
Later in the century, economic theory started being useful in increasing efficiency in public organizations.

In 1980s rational models of administrative science was presented and Wilson’s ideas about business-like management became stronger. Government structures needed decentralization. Later in the 1990s, the reinvention of the government ideas started popping up. P.A. field should focus on serving the citizens. In the late 1990s a movement towards citizen’s involvement sprouted – the involvement of various social actors such as businesses, general citizens and public officials. This involvement started happening on all levels.

HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATION BY PRESIDENTS

HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATION BY PRESIDENTS

CHAPTERS – NOTES

midterm chapters