Subject: Public Administration

Course: Public Administration: An Introduction

Module: Approaches to Public Administration (Scientific Management, Classical and
Bureaucratic approaches)

Introduction

An approach is a way of gaining access to the understanding of a subject or a

discipline. It refers to a particular manner of dealing with the problem. Like other social
sciences, in Public Administration too, there are various approaches which have been
developed since the discipline was identified as an independent field of enquiry by
Woodrow Wilson in 1887. Further, there has been a gradual evolution of the study of
these approaches which chronologically can broadly be divided into three categories viz.
Traditional or Classical, Human Relations Movement or Behavioral, and Modern or
System. The present unit deals with the Classical approach having Scientific
Management and Bureaucratic approaches as its main components. Broadly speaking,
this approach originated with the systematic study and analysis of organization in the last
decade of the 19th and early years of 20th centuries. It places emphasis on the formal
structure of organization, designing and planning of work. Further, it advocates a body
of principles in accordance with which the organizational plan is made out to fit the
requirements of selected purpose and then capable persons are selected to get the things
done as per the preconceived plan. It aims at improving the organizational structure as a
means of increasing efficiency. Further, it views man as an ‗economic man; who is driven
by material incentives. The main exponents of this approach are F. W. Taylor, Henri
Fayol, Max Weber, Mooney and Reiley, Gulick and Urwick, who put emphasis on the
scientific study of organization.

Scientific Management Approach

Scientific Management is one of the significant approaches to the study of Public

Administration that emerged during the early part of the 20th century. The credit for
originating this approach goes to F. W. Taylor who formulated universal principles of
scientific management to improve productivity and efficiency in organizations. To him,
―Management rests upon clearly formulated laws and principles with universal
applicability in all organizations which entitles it to the status of a true science.‖

Background

The latter part of the 19th century was the period of rapid industrialization and
there was competition for capturing world markets. The size of organizations increased
to a great extent but the method and process of management remained traditional. This
led to management inefficiency which threatened the existence of big organizations. The
slogan of the age was ―increase efficiency‖ but the working conditions were chaotic.
There was no planning, no standard tools, no optimum use of resources and method of
work left to workers, So, strong need was felt to give more attention on replacing the
traditional system of management. Several scholars like Henry Towne and Henry
Metcalf studied the problem of inefficiency and tried to develop a unified system of
management. However, the main contribution in this direction was that of Fredrick
Taylor, an American scholar, who insisted on scientific methods in management.

Further, the last decade of 19th century resulted in accumulation of resources in

American industry. Electrical power for factory became a fashion; heavy capital
investment became widespread; mechanization was being substituted for manual labor
and mass production techniques were emerging. With the accumulation of resources and
development of technology the major hurdle was in the form of developing, organizing,
controlling and administering the mass of resources. The main reason responsible for this
was the lack of standardized methods and procedures and little emphasis on coordinating,
integrating and systematizing work. At this juncture, Taylor who had a passion for
simplifying work principles and finding out the one best way, rose to the occasion and
emphasized the need for systematic management. Hence he emerged as ‗Father of
Scientific Management‘

Taylor‘s contribution to the development of scientific management can be seen in

his Works entitled ―A Piece-Rate System‖ (1895), ―Shop Management‖ (1903), ―The
Art of Cutting Metals‖(1906) and ―The Principles of Scientific Management.‖(1911). He
also conducted experiments like Bicycle Ball-Bearing, Pig Iron Handling, and Shoveling
as well as Time and Motion and Fatigue Studies. At the beginning of his career as a
worker at Midvale Steel Company Taylor observed certain defects in the traditional
management system. These were poor methods of training, lack of cooperation between
workers and management, restricted output because of ‗soldering‘ by the workers, lack of
standard of performance, hit and trial method in the placement of workers, lack of proper
studies about the division of work, etc. He recognized the need for a systematic, rational
and scientific approach to all jobs and problems.

Taylor’s Concept or Philosophy of Management

The essence of Taylor‘s concept of management is that the welfare of whole

society lies in the voluntary cooperation between workers and management while
applying scientific method in all jobs. The principle object of management according to
Taylor should be maximum production, along with maximum prosperity for the employer
and the employees. Evidently, his philosophy of scientific management is that there is no
conflict in the interests of management, and workers. The primary concern of Taylor was
that the results of higher productivity should equally benefit the workers in the form of
higher wages and greater profit to the management. He deplored short run short cuts
which gave one side advantage over another. His mutuality of interests emphasized a
long term growth of both parties to ensure prosperity for each and that lies in mental
revolution.

According to Taylor, in its essence, scientific management involves a complete

mental revolution on the part of the workmen engaged in any particular establishment or
industry – a complete mental revolution on the part of these men as the their duties
toward their employees. And it involves the equally complete mental revolution on the
part of those on the managerial side. He cautioned that generally management role was
inclined to place increasing burden on the workers, while keeping for itself only minor
responsibilities. In this context, he advised that over fifty percent of labor‘s work should
be assumed by management. The management should undertake the functions for which
it is best suited i.e. planning, organizing, controlling and determining the method of work.

Principles of Scientific Management

Initially, Taylor listed four principles as a guide for the best type of management.
These were:
 i) Daily Defined: each man in the organization should have a clearly defined
task before him every day so that he may work with a set goal;

ii) Standardized Working Conditions: the working conditions should be

standardized in such a way that the workers and management may accomplish
their task in an environment of certainty;

iii) Reward for Success: Worker should be given higher pay if he accomplishes
his task successfully and efficiently; and

iv) Penalty for Failure: if the worker fails to achieve the task entrusted to him,
penalty should be imposed on him.

The above principles were modified by Taylor as he felt that these are inadequate.
The revised principles were as under:

i) Development of a True Science of Work:

Taylor put too much emphasis on the use of science and scientific method in
every piece of work of worker. He wanted no place for traditional methods such as rule
of thumb, hit and trial, hunch, intuition etc. in the performance of work by the worker.
This could be achieved by scientifically investigating the working conditions and the
amount of work to be undertaken and then fixing daily task assignments so that the
worker may work in a planned manner. According to Taylor, ―Scientific Management
realize that there is a best way in doing everything, and that the best way can always be
formulated into certain rules; that you can get your knowledge away form the old chaotic
rule of thumb knowledge into scientific knowledge.‖

ii) Scientific Selection and Training of Workers:

According to Taylor while making scientific selection of workers, their physical

and intellectual qualities should be taken into account. Further, they should be placed in
those jobs to which they are best suited. Believing that every worker has potentialities
for development he insisted that every worker must be trained thoroughly and
systematically. And it should be the responsibility of management to train the workers
and offer them opportunities for advancement to do the job to the fullest realization of
their natural capacities.
iii) Equal Division of Work between Management and Workers:

Taylor‘s Scientific Management assumes equal responsibility and work between

management and workers. In this way he has rejected the traditional management theory
under which the worker has the entire responsibility of work while management has very
little responsibility. He advocated that management should take all tasks to which it is
best suited. Taylor strongly believed that this division of work will mitigate chances of
conflict and help in creating a peaceful atmosphere in the enterprise.

iv) Co-operation between Management and Workers:

To Taylor, both management and workers are the important pillars of an industrial
organization. The coordinated efforts of both are essential for the efficient functioning
of an organization. Therefore, he motivated workers and management to shun conflict
and work in a cordial manner. He believed that the interests of workers and management
are not separate but one. The higher wages to the workers and more profits to
management are possible only though maximum production. So, joint efforts should be
undertaken to increase production.

In brief, the combination of these principles constituted the crux of scientific

management approach which can be summed up as under:

a )Science in place of rule of thumb;

b) Harmony not discord;
c) Maximum output in place of restricted output;
d) Cooperation, not individualism; and
e) Development of each man to fullest extent.
Critical Evaluation

Scientific management as developed by F.W. Taylor is one of the significant

approaches to the study of Public Administration of early years. It created a revolution in
industrial field by using scientific rationality. It became a movement and offered the
hope of resolving industrial problems and influenced many thinkers, scholars and
researchers. The concept of mental revolution underlying this approach is an important
basis of partnership between labor and management. Its emphasis on increasing
production is justified even today.
 However, Taylor‘s approach has been criticized by various stakeholders. The
scathing attack was form workers who considered it a menace for the community at large.
They were skeptical of the impact of ―stop watch‖ and ―rate cutting approach.‖ Trade
unions also felt that Taylor was more interested in the mechanical aspect of the work and
not much concerned with human aspects of production. Labor leaders criticized his
approach as it was not only destroying trade unionism but also the principle of collective
bargaining. In this context, Robert Hoxie, who conducted investigation of Scientific
Management, on behalf of the United States Commission on Industrial Relations, has
observed that the basic ideals of scientific management and trade unions were
incompatible. To him, scientific management concerned wholly with production, and
was unconcerned with the problems of the monotony of work.

Taylor‘s scientific management approach was also criticized by managers who

wanted quick promotions to high managerial positions without any merit whereas the
former has advocated training by highly trained experts. Further, they could not relish
comments on rule of thumb method. It is noteworthy that Taylor himself had to resign
from both Midvale Steel Works and Bethlehem Steel because of the dissensions with the
company managers.

The scientific approach also became target of attack by human relations theorists
and behaviorists led by Elton Mayo on the ground that it was impersonal and ignored the
human factor. The famous Hawthorne experiments conducted by Elton Mayo and others
proved that it is not the structural arrangements as conceived by scientific approach rather
it is the emotional attitude of the worker towards his work and fellowmen which are
responsible for increasing efficiency and productivity. Thus these experiments have
virtually rejected the scientific approach.

Taylor‘s scientific management approach based upon the principles of

specialization and division of work has been criticized on several grounds. Firstly, under
it, the work gets depersonalized and the worker became a mere cog in the machine. As a
result, he lacks the sense of participation in his work. Moreover, worker finds no outlet
to exhibit his abilities. Secondly, it leads to automation of work or monotony which has
serious physical and neurological consequences for workers and the ‗organization, in the
words of Peter Drucker, ‗becomes a poor piece of engineering‘.

Despite many criticisms, Taylor‘s scientific management approach to the study of

Public Administration or organization remains supremely important as it made
considerable contribution to the acceptance of efficiency as a primary goal of
administration and management and many of its features have proved to be enduring.

The Classical Approach

The classical approach, also known as traditional or formal or structural or

mechanical or engineering or administrative management, developed during the 1st half
of the 20th century. The credit for originating this approach goes to Henri Fayol, a French
industrialist and manager who expressed his ideas in his famous book ―General and
Industrial Management‖ published in 1916. In this effort, he was supported by James
Mooney and Allen Reiley who co-authored a book entitled ―Onward Industry‖ published
in 1918. The approach became popular after the publication of ―Papers on the Science of
Administration‖ by Luther Gulick and Lyndal Urwick in 1938. They formulated
‗universal principles of organization‘ which popularly came to be known as ‗classical or
‗traditional‘ approach‘ of organization. It is so called because of being one of the earliest
formulations based on systematic analysis of organization. The approach is also named
‗formal‘ or ‗structural‘ because it views the organization in terms of its purpose and
formal structure. Another name given to this approach is ‗mechanical‘ or ‗engineering‘ as
it lays stress on design or plan which can be prepared by experts with the help of certain
definite principles. Accordingly, it assumes organization as a machine and personnel
working in it the tools of the machine. Further, classical approach is also called
‗administrative management‘ because it mainly deals with the formulations of principles
pertaining to administration and management which according to Fayol are not two
distinct domains but one i.e. administrative management.

Characteristics and Assumptions

The main characteristics or assumptions of the classical approach are as under:

 The classical approach lays more stress on the structure of the organization
than the role of the people in the organization. In this regard L. Urwick, one of
the main exponents of this approach, has aptly remarked that ―it is impossible
for humanity to advance the knowledge of organization unless the factor of
structure is isolated from other considerations.‖ It assumes that all problems
of organization originate in its structure. So there should be scientific basis of
the structure of organization.

 According to classical approach law, rules, process, structure and control

system play decisive role in administration. It assumes that every
administrative organization is a formal structure which is administered by
predetermined rules, principles and work procedures and therefore,
administrative structure or its parts can be presented and clarified with the
help of charts.

 The classical approach stresses upon the importance of design in the

organization. Viewing organization primarily as a designing process, L.
Urwick observed that lack of design is ‗illogical, cruel, wasteful and
inefficient.‘

 The underlying assumption of this approach is that there are certain

fundamental principles on the basis of which an organization can be
established to achieve a specific objective. Therefore, supporters of this
approach such as Henri Fayol, Luther Gulick, L. Urwick, Moonery and Reiley
have put much of their attention on the discovery of principles of
organization. Some of the important principles discovered by them include
division of work, hierarchy, co-ordination, span of control, delegation, unity
of command, centralization and decentralization etc.

 The classical approach is primarily concerned with improving the

organizational structure as a means of bringing economy and efficiency.
Assuming administration as a technical problem, it concentrates its whole
attention upon efficiency.
 The supporters of classical approach believe that there is no difference
between public administration and private administration because all
administrative organizations need similar techniques and principles. Henri
Fayol, while writing in the context of industrial undertakings, has divided the
totality of activities in to six broad categories viz. technical, commercial,
financial, security, accounting and managerial which are present in all
organizations irrespective of their nature and size. However, while laying
more stress on the managerial activity, he elaborately discussed its five
elements – Planning, Organization, Command, Coordination and Control
(POCCC). It was further improved by Luther Gulick into famous acronym
POSDCORB, each letter of which represents one important function of the
manager or administrator i.e. Planning, Organization, Staffing, Direction, Co-
ordination, Reporting and Budgeting.

 According to classical thinkers, division of work or work division or

departmentalization is the foundation of organization. It is necessary in view
of the fact that men differ in nature, capacity and skill. Accordingly, classical
approach addresses the problem of bases on which work may be divided and
departments created. Gulick has identified four such bases -- Purpose
(functions), Process, People (clientele) and Place.--commonly known as 4Ps.
Since all these bases have their respective advantages and disadvantages so
while subdividing the work or establishing the units of work a choice must be
made as to which of these is relevant.

 As per this approach, coordination is the natural corollary of the principle of

division of work. In this regard, Gulick observed that if sub division of work
is inescapable, coordination becomes mandatory. Likewise, Mooney has
rightly remarked that ‗coordination is the first principle of organization.‘

 Classical theorists, particularly Gulick and Urwick favored organizations

headed by single top executive rather than the plural ones. They believed in
the principle of unity of command which imply that a subordinate should
 receive orders only from one superior. However, they were susceptible about
its universal applicability in view of Taylor‘s functional supervision which
ensured greater efficiency. Despite this, Gulick argued that ‗we may prefer
the advantages that are likely to accrue when we follow the principle rather
than the confusion, inefficiency, and irresponsibility that may follow its
violation. Further, according to classical theorists since all authority rests
with the leader he requires assistance in running the organization. For this
Gulick and Urwick advocated the principle of Line and Staff which they
borrowed from their experience in military organization and the same is yet to
be clarified in civilian organizations.

 This approach believes in the correspondence of authority and responsibility.

As Urwick puts it ‗the authority and responsibility must be coterminous, co-
equal and defined..‘ However, it assumes that the flow of authority runs top
down while that of responsibility bottom up.

 The classical approach assumes that an official, at a time, cannot effectively

control simultaneously more than a certain number of subordinates. It is
because of the limits of knowledge, time and energy of the supervisor and
different kinds of works and sizes of organizations. Thus, it is the capacity of
the supervisor along with elements of diversification of work, time and space
which govern the principle of span of control advocated by classical theorists.

Critical Evaluation

Despite the great contribution of classical approach to the study of Public

Administration, it has been a victim of many criticisms which may briefly be discussed as
under:

The principles of organization, propounded by classical thinkers, claiming

universal validity have been severely criticized on the ground that they failed to make
clear as to what they meant by the ‗universal validity of the principles‘. According to
Herbert Simon, main critic of classical approach, these ‗principles‘ are not ‗principles‘ at
all. At best, these can be considered as criteria for describing and diagnosing
administrative situations. Simon, while further criticizing some of its accepted principles
especially division of work, unity of command and span of control called them mere
‗myths‘ or ‗proverbs‘ or ‗slogans‘ mainly because one principle contradicts the other. In
the same vein Hicks and Gullet has observed that ‗with the absence of the scientific basis,
the (classical) theory (approach) is merely a set of proverbs, comparable to folklore and
folk-wisdom.‘

The bases of departmental organization, commonly known as 4‘P‘s, are criticized

on the grounds of incompatibility, vagueness and overlapping. Further, according to
critics, these are prescriptive and not descriptive in nature as they explain how work
should be divided rather than how work is actually divided. In this regard, Simon has
pointed out that the advocates of classical approach have not provided any clue as to
which basis is preferable in any given situation.

The classical approach is also criticized for its neglect of the human element in an
organization. According to critics, it lays too much emphasis on the formal structure of
the organization, ignoring altogether the informal organizational process. However, it can
hardly be denied that human relations play vital role in an organization. The approach is
also criticized as being atomistic, which views individuals in isolation from the
fellowmen in the organization. Further, classicists analyze organization as a ‘machine‘
and individuals as ‗tools‘. But critics are of the opinion that organization consists of
individuals who can never be like tools which are non-living. Thus, they dubbed this
approach as mechanistic or static which fails to explain the dynamics of organizational
behavior. Moreover, this approach accords preference to rules, laws, procedures and
charts of the organization which, critics opine, is not fully acceptable.

Critics are of the view that classical approach describes organization as a ‗closed
system‘ unaffected by external environment while the reality is that organizations are
living organisms which influence the external environment and in turn are influenced by
them. Some critics point out that classical approach has a pro-management bias as it is
primarily concerned with the problems of management in the organization.
 To sum up, it can be said that in spite of various criticism leveled against the
classical approach, it is regarded as one of the important approaches to the understanding
of organization. Though, it is the earliest formulation, yet its impact can be seen even
today as it is still dominant among many practicing administrators.

Bureaucratic Approach

Bureaucratic approach is an offshoot of classical approach that emerged in the

beginning of the 20th century. The main exponent of this approach is Max Weber, a
German scholar. He expressed his views at a time when bureaucratic organization was at
its peak and its impact was clearly visible on the society. Like a true scientist, he
analyzed the origin, nature, development and consequences of the then bureaucracy in its
sociological, historical and comparative context. However, he based his concept of
bureaucracy on authority which to him means a command of definite content that elicits
obedience on the part of specific individuals. Though he has discussed three type of
authority—legal, traditional and charismatic yet he preferred legal one because of
inherent rationalism in it and designed his model of bureaucracy on it.

Characteristics of Bureaucratic Approach

According to Weber, bureaucracy is an administrative body of appointed officials.

Thus he includes, in bureaucracy, only appointed officials, leaving out the elected ones.
It forms a definite but distinct group whose influence can be seen in all types of
organizations. The main characteristics of bureaucratic approach are as under:

 Continuity of business: According to Bureaucratic approach, government

machinery is of permanent nature and bureaucracy is a dynamic organization
to conduct business of the state on regular basis. So rules should be
formulated to govern the transaction of business.

 Fixed rules: An administrative agency functions in accordance with

stipulated rules and is characterized by three interrelated attributes: a) the
powers and functions of each official is delimited in terms of impersonal
criteria; b) the official is given matching authority to carry out his
 responsibility; and c) the authority of the official is limited and the conditions
under which his employment is legitimate are clearly defined.

 Hierarchy: Members of the bureaucratic organization are organized into a

clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Every official is part of hierarchy of
authority in which higher officials supervise while lower have the right to
appeal.

 Division of work based on specialization: The hierarchical system of

personnel not only explains the authority but also makes clear the division of
work as each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the rational
sense.

 Trained and qualified personnel: According to this approach, the rules

regulating the conduct of an office may be either technical rules or norms. In
both cases, if their application is to be fully rational, specialized training is
necessary. It is thus normally true that only a person who has demonstrated
an adequate technical training is qualified to be a member of the
administrative personnel of such an organized group, and hence only such
persons are eligible for appointment to official position.

Further, qualifications for each post or office are defined in order to ensure
efficiency in the administration. Candidates are selected on the basis of
technical qualifications which in the most rational case are tested by
examination. Thus, the appointment and job placement of each official
depends on his technical (administrative) qualification.

 Career system: The job of the official constitutes a career because

administrative work performed by him becomes his full time occupation. His
work is rewarded by a fixed salary and by prospects of regular advancement
in a lifetime career. Further, a permanent official cannot be removed unless
there is serious lapse on his part. However he can be transferred from one
place to another. Besides, his office remains constantly under strict discipline.
  Neutrality or Impersonality: It is expected from all the officials to exercise
the authority delegated to them in accordance with impersonal rules, and their
loyalty is expressed through faithful execution of duties. In this regard Weber
has observed that ‗impersonal orders‘ should orient the actions of the
bureaucracy both in the issuance of the commands to subordinates and their
obedience to them

 Personal and public ends: To fulfill the duties of an organization, every

official is provided various types of administrative means and resources but he
does not own these as official business and private affairs are strictly
separated. Further, offices cannot be appropriated by the incumbents like
private property which can be sold-purchased, gifted or inherited.

 Written documents: As per this approach, administration functions on the

basis of written documents as too much emphasis is laid on ‗paper work‘. All
administrative acts, decisions and rules are formulated and recorded in
writing. This practice not only makes the administration accountable to
people but provides a ready reference for future action.

 Formalism: Bureaucratic organization functions on formal basis as no

importance is attached to informal statements. All administrative acts are
performed according to procedure established by law and rules and this
practice makes administration a formal organization.

 Efficiency: According to this approach, an ideal type of bureaucratic

organization is technically capable of attaining the goal of efficiency because
every act is performed by experts.

 Distinction between office and incumbent: There is separation of office and

the incumbent. The office is permanent while the incumbent who occupies
the office is temporary.

Critical Evaluation:
 The bureaucratic approach, propounded by Max Weber, has been
criticized on various grounds by critics on various grounds which may be
discussed as under:

The bureaucratic approach, being part of the broad classical approach,

ignores the human behavior in the organization. Simon and March, the main
critics of this approach, have rightly pointed out that the approach would not
attain maximum efficiency as it lay more emphasis on structure of the
bureaucracy than on the human beings. Further, this approach puts too much
emphasis on formalism, rules and discipline. Weber, the advocate of this
approach, considers logical behavior, hierarchy, division of work, specialization,
and career development key to efficiency while it is true that informal relations
too play vital role in increasing the efficiency in the organization. In fact, Weber
has ignored the informal conflict of power within bureaucracy.

Robert Merton, another prominent critic of the bureaucratic approach,

questioned the legality of its very basis i.e. legal rational model. To him, the rules
which are rational in Weber‘s sense generate consequences which are detrimental
to the attainment of objectives of an organization. Thus too much emphasis on
rules would lead to displacement of real goals of an organization.

The bureaucratic approach suffers from internal inconsistency also. As

pointed out by Talcott Parsons, Weber expects administrative staff to be
technically superior but it is not always possible to ensure that high position in the
hierarchy of authority will match by equivalent professional skills. In such a
situation individuals working in an organization will face the problem of whom to
obey, the person having the right to command or the man with the greater ability.

Critics are of the view that this approach is not suitable for development
administration mainly because of the adherence to the principle of ‗sphere of
competence‘. They are of the opinion that development administration throws
multifarious new challenges which have to be met by the administrator promptly
rather than to wait and seek clarification from superiors whether he is competent
or not. But strict adherence of this principle causes delays and thus inefficiency by
providing excuse to the officer to shirk responsibility. The approach has also been
victim of criticism due to negative effect of documents which Weber insisted as
significant in his rational bureaucracy particularly engaged in welfare activities.
Critics argue that this will make the experts just clerks drowned in files.

Karl Marx criticized the bureaucratic approach on the ground that it

justifies capitalist domination on society. He argues that the purpose of Weber‘s
so called ‗philosophy of history‘ was to legitimize the ‗authority‘ or ‗domination‘.

Though Weber‘s bureaucratic approach has been criticized extensively yet

is unique in it self. It is the only reliable approach to the interpretation of
bureaucracy. Further, Weber seems to be right when he says that legal rational
model is superior as compared to others. Most of the criticisms are due to the
changes in the nature of bureaucracy which Weber could hardly foresee.