CHAPTER 9 Max Weber The Bureaucratic Theory Introduction ‘Among the pioneers of administrative thought, Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist, is regarded as the greatest scholar. He is the architect of the bureaucratic model—an ideal-type bureaucracy. His analysis of the social and historical context of administration and, more particularly, “bureaucracy may well be Weber’s distinctive contribution to the literature on public administration. Eventful Years Early life. Max Weber was born in Erfurt, Thuringia, Gefmany, on 21 April 1864, His father, Max Weber, Sr., was a prosperous right-wing politician whose governmental posts included a seat in the Reichstag (German Parliament). Weber's mother, Helene Fallenstein Weber, was a cultured woman belonging of the Protestant faith and the daughter of a well-to-do official.! During pre-university schooling which ended in the spring of 1882, Weber was known to possess exceptional talent but was perceived to lack routine industry and moral maturity by his teachers. 1882. In 1882 Weber commenced the study of economics, philosophy, and law at the University of Heidelberg. After three semesters at Heidelberg, Weber moved to Strassburg to serve a year in the military. Here, Weber, who would later become a recognized authority on bureaucracy, rebelled 1. HLH. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 3 92 _ ce earrreemtlChapter 9_ Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory e 93 against the “incredible waste of time required to domesticate thinking beings into machines responding to commands with automatic precision”.? 1886. In 1886 he took his first examination in law and three years later, completed his Ph.D. thesis on the History of Trading Companies during the Middle Ages (1889). 1890. In 1890 he passed his second examination in law. He habilitated himself in Berlin for commercial, German, and Roman law with a treatise on what Marx once called “the secret history of the Romans”, namely, The History of Agrarian Institutions (1891). 1892, Weber was appointed as an instructor in law at the University of Berlin. 1893. In the fall of 1893 Weber married Marianne Schnitzer, a second cousin on his father’s side after they had fallen in love. Earlier, Weber gently broke with a daughter of his mother's sister with whom Weber had been in love for some six years. He never forgot that he had unwillingly caused suffering to this tender girl 1894, In the fall of 1894, Weber accepted a full’ professorship in Economics at Freiburg, and in 1896 he accepted a chair at the University of Heidelberg. Weber did not consider himself to be a scholar, and although he chose an academic career, he held a regular academic position for only five years. 1897. In 1897 Weber’s father died after a tense discussion in which Max Weber heatedly defended his mother against what seemed to him autocratic impositions. Later, Weber felt that his hostile outbreak against his father was a guilty act which could never be rectified. After his trip to Spain in 1898, Weber became ill with a psychic problem. For the rest of his life he suffered intermittently from severe depressions, punctuated by manic spurts of extraordinarily intense intellectual work and travel. Indeed, his way of life from this time seems to oscillate between neurotic collapse, travel and work. Weber suffered under the psychic burden of receiving money from the University without rendering adequate service. He felt that only a man at his work is a full man, and he forced himself to work. Although he suffered repeated setbacks, Weber published a book review in 1903, and by 1904 his writing productivity was returning to its previous level. In the same year’ Weber visited the United States where he delivered a paper and toured the country. ? 1914, When the First World War began, Weber wanted to march along with the army, but his medical condition made this impossible, which was 2. Ibid., p. 8. 3. Marianne Weber, Max Weber: ein Lebensbild (Tubingen: Publishers, 1926), p. 393. (This is a biography by Max Weber's widow and reflects on Max Weber's life.)94 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought extremely painful to him. He was, however, commissioned as a captain, in- charge of establishing and running nine hospitals in the Heidelberg area. In this position he experienced from the inside what had become a central concept in his sociology: bureaucracy. 1918. In April 1918 Weber moved to Vienna where he gave his first university lectures in 19 years. He experienced compulsive anxieties how- ever, and had to use opiates in order to sleep. 1919. Weber accepted an academic position in Munich in 1919, but held it only for a short time. 1920. In midsummer Weber fell ill, and, at a late stage of his disease, a doctor was‘able to diagnose his condition as deep-seated pneumonia. He died at the age of 56 in June 1920. Weber's Major Works 1. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904): This is a volume dealing with sociology of religion, published by Allen & Unwin, London in 1930. 2. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology: This work comprising different sections from The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, along with representative selections from Weber's other works, have been made available by editors H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. It has been published by Oxford University Press, London in 1946, 3. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization: This has been translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, and published by Oxford University Press, New York in 1947. 4. The Methodology of the Social Sciences: This work has been translated by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, and published by Free Press, New York in 1949. 5. Politics as a Vocation (1919): This essay has been published by Fortress Press, Philadelphian in 1965. 6. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology: This has been published by Bedminister, New York in 1968. 7. Jugendbriefe (Tubingen: Publishers, N.D.) Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft (Economics and Society): Unfinished at his death, it depicts the development of western rationality through the instrumentalities of capitalism, science and bureaucracy. Also unfinished at the time of his death were the lectures published in English under the title “General Economic History”.Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory « 95 In addition, Weber published two major essays on Russia: The Situation of Bourgeois Democracy in Russia” and “Russia’s Transition to Sham Constitutionalism”. His last lectures have been published as General Economic History (1920) THE PROCESS OF RATIONALIZATION Max Weber was neither read nor well known in the United States and many Asian and European countries until after the beginnings of the field of public administration (Woodrow Wilson’s essay: “The Study of Administration” was published in 1887). Moreover, public administration was not his main focus of analysis. Weber focuses on the concept of rationalization which he considers to be the constitutive element of modem Western society. He” places public administration in a broad social and historical context and sees the processes of public administration as part of the more general process of rationalization in modern Western societies And second, Weber’s ideas concern with patterns of domination. Weber measures the degree of rationalization in society in two ways: 1. Positively, rationalization is measured by the extent to which ideas ( 3 gain in systematic coherence and consistency. Negatively, it is A measured by the displacement of magical element of thought, 2. A related emphasis in Weber’s analysis is the concept of domination, To Weber, emergence of rational societies depends on the way in which domination has been exerted. / Further, Weber maintains that domination is a subset of the phenomenon of ‘power’. For domination, it is believed that the ruler has the right to exercise power and the ruled have a duty to obey.4 For Weber, there are two basic types of dominations: domination based on constellations of interests manifested in religious and economic associations, and domination based on authority, manifested in the operations of the state and bureaucratic organizations. The legitimacy of domination based on authority is derived from three sources: charisma, tradition, and legality/rationality. = Domination Based on Constellations of Interests Weber identifies domination within each religion with a particular status group of religious leaders. For Hinduism, the status group is the hereditary caste of Brahmins; for Christianity, it is the urban bourgeoisie; and for Confucianism, it is government officials with a literary education. Moreover, as is the case with all bureaucracies, there is a democratic tendency in religions as they become bureaucratized, which fights against status privileges. Weber’s examination of Christianity focuses primarily on the 4. Nicos P. Mouzelis, Organization and Bureaucracy (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), pp. 15-16.Nay itoh AbateRH eves AI i ae an. 96 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought Protestant sects and their relationship to capitalism. He emphasizes that capitalism should be seen as the result of a specific combination of political, economic, and religious factors, and not just the religious factor. In discussing the relationship between Protestantism and capitalism, Weber argues that modem capitalism presupposes the existence of a number of conditions: that there is private ownership of the means of production; that formally free labour exists; that a limited government allows the market to operate relatively, freely; and that a system of finances exists, particularly a money economy. Modern capitalism is seen in terms of money calculation, Weber believes that capitalism represents the highest stage of reationality in economic behaviour. By ‘rational’, Weber means an economic system based, not on custom or tradition, but on a systematic and _ deliberate adjustment of economic means to attain pecuniary profit. He argues that the source of modem cfpitalism is Protestantism. Protestantism gave positive spiritual and moral meaning to worldly activities. The Protestant sects joined the idea that the God blesses with riches those who please Him with a kind of religious conduct embodying the notion that honesty is the best policy. In his illustration of the doctrines of Calvinism (an offshoot of Lutheranism—one of the Protestant sects), Weber contends that the Calvinists believed that salvation was attained by the performance of good deeds. Calvinists demanded a life of good works with no place for the Catholic cycle of sin, repentance, and atonement. Calvinism sought to subject man to the dictates of a supreme will and to bring man’s actions under constant self-control, guided by ethical standards.? The Protestant asceticism holds that the individual needs hard, continuous bodily or mental labour. (\ Weber holds that the religious roots of modem capitalism led to the \ tenets of worldly utilitarianism which tas_given_way 10am. o0Ry of smaterialism. He concludes that whereas the Puritan wanted to work because it was his ‘galling’, modern man is forced to work in the ‘iron cage’ of the. jew economic order, and the pursuit of material goods controls his life.® Domination Based on Authority Domination based on authority is found in legal and bureaucratic relation- ships. Obedience in systems of domination based on authority depends on the perception of legitimacy. The sources of legitimacy differ. To Weber, there are three sources of legitimacy for domination based on authority. 5. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, wans. A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1947), pp. 42-50. 6. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Scritmer’s, 1958), p. 1 7. Tbid., p. 119 8. Ibid. p. 181Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory @ 97 TYPOLOGY OF AUTHORITY Weber's most widely acknowledged contribution to the study of organi- zation has been his theory of authority. He was concerned with the distribution of power among the organizational positions in the bureaucratic structure. His concern was as to why individuals obey commands. To deal with this problem, Weber made a distinction bétween power and authority. (i) Power. An organization, according to Weber, is a bureaucracy that sets norins and orders which must be obeyed if the organi- zation is to function effec-tively. To that extent, an organization can rely on its power to make the individual obey. The exercise of power has a major limitation. It keeps the subject, as he conforms, alienated. On the other hand, when the exercise of power gets legitimation—that is, when the orders issued or rules set conform to the values to which the subjects are committed—compliance will be more effective. The subject will internalize the orders ‘and rules. Weber uses (i) the term ‘power’ to refer to the ability to force people to obey orders; (ii) the term ‘legitimation’ to refer to the acceptance of the exercise of power because it conforms to the values held by the subjects; and (iii) the term ‘authority’ to refer to the combination of the’ two—that is, to power which is viewed as legitimate. , (ii) Authority, Under an authority system, orders are voluntarily obeyed by subordinates. They see the issuing of orders by those in the superordinate role as ‘legitimate’. Weber’s concept of authority is based on the legitimation and not on power. He asserts that there are three sources of legitimacy for domination based on authority: charisma, tradition, and legality/rationality. These are pure, or ‘ideal’ types, and the bases of legitimacy usually occur in mixtures in their historical manifestations. Charismatic Authority Charismatic authority rests on “devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person ...”. In other words, the mode of exercising authority is based on the personal qualities of the leader. Weber used the Greek word ‘charisma’ and defines it as the “quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities”.? Accordingly, charismatic authority is a form of rule over people to which they submit because of their belief in the magical powers, revelations, or heroism of the 9. Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, op. cit, p. 358.9B © Adininistrative Theories and Management Thought leader.!° Weber states that the pure type of charismatic authority appears ‘only briefly in comparison to a more enduring structures of traditional and legal-rational authority. This is the position of the prophet, the warrior chief- tain, or political leader. In this type of authority, the question of succession arises on the death of a leader. Even if the leader himself nominates his successor, he may not be accepted. The only basis of legitimacy is personal charisma, so long as it receives recognition. Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Gautam Buddha, Nelson Mandela, Abraham, Lincoln Lenin, Pope John Paul II, are some examples of charismatic leaders. The leader in charismatic authority is constrained only by his personal judgement, and he is not governed by any formal method of adjudication." Whatever organization exists is composed of an aristocracy chosen on the basis of charismatic qualities. There is no procedure for appointment, promotion, or dismissal, and there is no continuing hierarchical assignment of tasks. Administration under charismatic authority, according to Weber, is loose and_unstable. Traditional Authority Traditional authority is based on respect for the eternal past, in the rightness and appropriateness of the traditional or customary way of doing things. It rests on “an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the, leBitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them™. The mode of exercising authority is based on precedent and usage. New rules are not enacted, they are found. The ruler or a leader in such a system has authority by virtue of the status that he has inherited, and the extent. of his authority is fixed by custom or usage. Administration under traditional authority, according to Weber, tends to be irrational because the development of rational regulations is impeded by the indulgence of personal whims. Traditional authority is a regime of favourites with a shifting series of tasks and powers commissioned and granted by a leader through arbitrary decisions."? Justice under traditional authority is a mixture of constraints and personal discretion. The organizational form under a traditional authority system can be either (i) patrimonial or (ii) feudal. Under the patrimonial form, the officials are personal servants who depend on t for remyneration. But under the feudal form, the officials have much more autonomy with their own sources of income. Although Weber gives examples from the historical past, his insight is equally applicable to modern organizations. Managerial 10. Weber offers the concept of charisma as one from which value judgements about particular individuals perceived as having charisma have been excluded. [bid., p. 359. Il, Reinhard Bendix, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960), pp. 295-296. 12. Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, op. cit, p. 343.Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory « 99 positions and appointments in private firms are still justified in terms of hereditary transmission (from father to son) rather than on the basis of a rational ground, - : Legal-Rational Authority The legitimacy of legal-rational authority rests on “a belief in the legality of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules, to issue commands rules. It is legal because authority is exercised by means of a system of rules, norms and procedures through the office which an individual holds at a particular time. In administration, the legitimacy of legal-rational authority rests on rules that are rationally established. Submission to authority is based ‘on an impersonal bond to a generally defined ‘duty of office’ and official duty is fixed by rationally established norms.'3 Thus the official does not exercise power in his own right; he is only a ‘trustee’ of an impersonal, compulsory institution. For such an organization, Weber uses the term “bureaucracy”. As compared to legal authority, the other two types of authority place major obstacles in the way of rational action. Thus, Weber refers to legal authority as Jegal-rational authority. The main problem of charismatic leadership is one of succession. Weber maintains that, when the personal authority of the charismatic leader is displaced by mechanisms or rules for ascertaining the ‘divine will’, a_routinization of charisma has taken place.!* Regarding succession, as established procedures used to select a successor come to govern the process, the forces of tradition and rationali- zation begin to take effect, and charisma is dissociated from a person and embedded in an objective institutional structure. In the process, an unstable structure of authority gives way to a more permanent traditional or legal- rational structures of authority. With routinization, execution of received orders replaces personal action. With the development of legal-rational authority, either through the routinization of charisma or the breakdown of the privileges of traditional authority, there is a certain ‘leveling’ influence with the recognition of authority treated as a source of legitimacy rather than as a consequence of authority. Thus, legitimacy in legal-rational authority takes on some democratic overtones.!5 According to Weber, there are two major forms of domination based on authority; legal structure and bureaucratic administration. Weber holds that law grows out of the usages and conventions found in all societies. Law is differentiated from mere usage and convention. However, it is dis- tinguished by the presence of a staff, which may use coercive power for its 13. Gerth and Mills, From Max Weber, op. cit., p. 299. 14, bid. p. 250. 15, Max Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, op. cit., p. 73 '. Under this system, obedience is to the -100 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought enforcement. Weber notes that not all legal orders are regarded as autho- ritative. Legal authority exists only when the legal order is implemented and obeyed in the belief that it is legitimate. Weber suggests that 10 be effective and efficient as an organization, a modern organizational structure needs bureaucratic authority. Charismatic authority relations lack specialization or stability. On the other hand, traditional authority relations are typically found in a diffuse status structure, as for example, in an aristocracy. Thus, according to Weber, bureaucracies are the social units most suited for moder organizations. Kinds of rationality. Weber maintains that there are two kinds of rationality associated with the creation of legal norms: substantive and rational if itis guided by principles such as those embodied in religious or ethical thought. An act is formally rational _when it is based on general rules, Conversely, an act is formally irrational if 7 Baided b ns beyond the control of reason (e.g., prophetic revelation ce ordeal and substantively irrational if b: ional_if based on emotional evaluations of single cases.16 THE BUREAUCRATIC STRUCTURE: CHARACTERISTICS Weber’s second form of domination based on authority is ‘bureaucracy’. Weber does not coin the term ‘bureaucracy’ nor does he define it; he only discusses its characteristics. (The term ‘bureaucracy’ was coined by M. de Gourmay, a Frenchman), He considered ‘bureaucracy to be a major element in the rationalization of the modern world and the most important of all social processes.'7 He asserts that domination functions through adminis- tration. The state, in Weber’s term, is a relationship of people, that structures domination by the use of violent force and concentrates the means of administration in the hands of the leaders. It is characterized by a body of law, bureaucracy, jurisdiction over territory and a monopoly over the use of force. Weber’s Concept of Organization Weber defines an organization as an “ordering of social relationships”. The organization consists of members accustomed to obedience; an adminis- tative staff that holds itself at the disposal of the masters; and the masters themselves, who hold power to command, not derived from a grant of power by others.'® Organizational rules regulate the possession and scope of 16. Max,Rheinstein, Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (New York: Simon and Schuister, 1954), pp. XI dnd Xli. 17. Martin Albrow, Bureaucracy (New York: Praeger, 1970), p. 43. 18. Rheinstein, Max Weber on Law, op. cit., p. 335.Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory @ 101 authority in the organization.'? The orientation of human behaviour to a set of rules is crucial and is the focus of Weber’s concept of organization. The development of bureaucracy is a product of the intensive and qualitative expansion of administrative functions. Weber states that the bureaucracy is the most advanced institutions of capitalism. He identifies bureaucracy as the dominant organizational form in a legal-rational society. Characteristics of the Ideal Type Bureaucracy Weber identifies bureaucracy as the most rational and efficient form of the organization devised by man. Bureaucracy is rational in that it involves control based on knowledge; it has clearly defined spheres of competence; it operates according to analyzable rules, and has calculability in its opera- tions.? Bureaucracy is efficient because of its precision, speed, consistency, availability of records, continuity, possibility of secrecy, unity, rigorous co- ordination, and minimization of interpersonal friction, personnel costs, and material costs.2! In Weber’s words, bureaucracy is: an administrative body of appointed officials”, and “is, from a purely technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is, in this sense, formally the most rational known means of carrying out imperative control over human beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability... It is, finally, superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations, and is formally capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks.2? Weber analyzed bureaucracies not empirically but as an ‘ideal type’ derived from the most characteristic bureaucratic features of all_known organizations. He identifies the main characteristics of this type of organi- zation as follows 1, Bound by rules. A pure bureaucracy functions in accordance with abstract rules. Although the bureaucrats may be immune from such rules in their personal affairs, there is systematic control over their official actions, A system of rules facilitates standardization and equality in the treatment of many cases. It also excludes the intervention of personal discretion and emotions. 2. sphere of competence. According to Weber, a specific sphere 7 of competence involves “(a) a sphere of obligations to perform functions which have been marked off as part of a systematic 19. Albrow, op. cit, pp. 38-39. 20. David Beetham, Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974), p. 69. 21. Rheinstein, Max Weber on Law, op. cit., p. 349. 22. Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization, op. cit., p. 337 I |102 e 5. 6. Administrative Theories and Management Thought division of labour; (b) the provision of the incumbent with the necessary authority to carry out these functions; (c) that the neces- sary means of compulsion are clearly defined and their use is subject to definite conditions” Thus, a systematic division of labour, power and responsibility defined by administrative regulations, are essential for the func- tioning of a rational organization. Not only must each officeholder know his job and have the necessary authority to carry it out, but he must also know the limits of his job, obligations and power so as not to undermine the organizational structure. Principle of hierarchy. Weber observes: “The organization of office follows the principle of hierarchy; that is, each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one”. This means that every subordinate in the administrative hierarchy is account- able to his superior for his actions. Need of specialized training. “The rules which regulate the conduct of an office may be technical rules or norms. In both cases, if their application is to be fully rational, specialized training is necessary”. According to Weber, the root of the authority of the bureaucrat is his knowledge and skill- Impersonal detachment. “It is a matter of principle that the members of the administrative staff should be completely separated from ownership of the means of production or administration. There exists, furthermore, in principle, complete separation of the property belonging to the organization, which is controlled within the spheres of the office, and the personal property of the official”. Further, there has to be a complete absence of appropriation of official position by the officeholder. Such a separation of office and officeholder would enhance organizational efficiency, and prevent the officeholder from misusing his position. The ideal administrator performs his functions in a spirit of formalistic impersonality, that is, without his personal interests, affection or enthusiasm. Keeping records. Another principle of bureaucracy is that the “administrative acts, decisions, and rules are formulated and recorded in writing”. Weber stresses the need for maintaining a systematic interpretation of norms and enforcement of rules which cannot be maintained through oral communication. Career service, Weber’s bureaucratic structure provides for (a) payment of salaries in accordance with responsibility as well as social status; (b) promotions and career advancement on the basis of both seniority and achievement; and (c) appeal and grievanceChapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory e 103 machinery. Service in a bureaucratic organization constitutes a career. Consequently, the employees identify themselves with the organization, and this prompts them to work for the organization’s productivity. According to Weber, the bureaucratic form is “capable of attaining the highest degree of efficiency”. Further, he says that the structure inherent in an organization makes the bureaucratic form of administration a system far superior to any other as regards its accuracy, stability, strict discipline, and reliability. Thus, Weber's bureaucratic form of organization creates conditions that make every official act only in accordance with the “rational aims of the organization as a whole.” 8. The non-bureaucratic head. Organizations which Weber refers to as bureaucracies have non-bureaucratic heads. The non-bureau- cratic head sets the rules to be followed, and decides which goals are to be served by the administrative staff. Although the bureau- crats are recruited and appointed, the non-bureaucratic or political perform an important activity in helping to maintain the emotional commitment to the rules of the organization. Elements in Bureaucracy In brief, the concept of bureaucracy contains several elements, including the following [The officials}: “1. are personally free and are subject to authority only with respect to their impersonal official obligations; 2. are recognized in a clearly defined hierarchy of offices; 3. each of them has a clearly defined sphere of competence ...; 4. work entirely separated from ownership of the means of adminis- tration . 5. are subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in the conduct of the office”. Terms of Employment Weber also outlines the terms of employment in the bureaucratic organi- zation [The officials]: 1. are personally free and are appointed on the basis of a contract; 23. Ibid., p. 337. 24, Ibid., p. 328.104 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought 2. are appointed, not elected. (Weber argues that election dilutes the strictness of hierarchical subordination); are appointed on the basis of professional qualifications; have a fixed salary and pension rights; posts are their sole or major occupation; are promoted on the basis of merit (though pressure to recognize seniority may also exist); 7. are subject to a unified control and disciplinary system in which the means of compulsion and its exercise are clearly defined.2 aAuwaw In slightly more modern language, bureaucracy is characterized by (i) hierarchical patterns of authority, (ji) a division of labour and speciali- zation of tasks, and (iii) an impersonal arrangement of offices. A CRITICAL EVALUATION In recent years Weber’s bureaucratic form of organization has become the subject of some serious criticism. These include the following: 1. Blau)says that Weber’s model explains the social structure only through the functions of its elements. It does not investigate into disturbances or ‘dysfunctions’ that various elements produce in the structure of an organization.’ Blau points out that Weber could not recognize that “... the same factor that enhances efficiency in one respect often threatens it in another; it may have both functional and dysfunctional consequences”. He argues that a fresh look has to be taken at the concept of rational administration. In a fast changing environment, “the attainment of organizational objectives depends on perpetual change in the bureaucratic structure”. According to Blau, efficiency in administration can be secured only when an individual is allowed to identify with the purposes of the organization and to adapt his behaviour to his perception of changing circumstances. Argyris|also claims that bureaucracies restrict the psychological growth of the individual and cause feelings of failure, frustration and conflict.2? He suggests that the organizational environment should provide a significant degree of individual responsibility, self-control, and an opportunity for individuals to apply their full abilities. 25. Gerth and Mills, From Max Weber, op. cit., pp. 198-204, 26. Peter M. Blau, Bureaucracy in Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 33. 27. Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: Wiley, 1964).. 2. A close examination of Weber’s model shows that it contains some contradictions. (a) The two principles ‘Impersonal detachment and esprit de corps, which, according to Weber, achieve administrative efficiency, are incompatible, since if the relations between the administrative staff are dictated by impersonal detachment, it becomes difficult to see how an esprit de corps can emerge. (b) Likewise, rigid adherence to the principle of hierarchical 1” ‘ j | Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory @ 105 relations between the superiors and subordinates gives rise to mutual suspicion as the latter tends to conceal defects in their work and interfere with the upward flow of information. (c) Similarly, there is a contradiction between the systems of promotion according to seniority and according to merit, which again cannot fail to reflect on the hierarchically built relations. (a) Philip Selznick) pointing to the division of functions, shows how sub-units set out goals of their own, which may contradict A S Set out goals of mek own wien may co! (" with the purposes of the organization as a whole. Critics, like he organization as a whole. Cri 2 (Gouldne st argue Gat the Webern model does not include ) the orientations of members in relation to the rules in the 4 organization. This model ignores the human touch, 3. Weber’s bureaucratic form of organization based strictly on formalistic structure is criticized by Chester Barnard and Simon. ) According to Barnard, “informal organizations are necessary to the | opefation of formal organizations." Blau too maintains that | “informal relations and_unofficial practices often contribute to | efficient operation”.29 \ 4. [Selznickalso draws attention to the vulnerability of bureaucracy’s eee nso Sse He criticizes the Weberian model for its neglect of the treatment of power which a bureaucrat assumes in the organization whereby he is “increasingly preoccupied with his own social position and in the end subverts the professed goals of the organization by concentrating only on his own power | position”3 Further, in a democratic country like India, it becomes difficult for a bureaucrat to remain impersonal in the face of growing personal needs and loyalty to superiors. 5. \Mouzelis}contends that Weber's ideal-type bureaucracy is not | necessarily rational and efficient, and, consequently, its posited ! combination of bureaucratic characteristics may not be “objectively 28. Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 123. | 29. Blau, op. cit, p. 36. 30. P. Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots (New York: Harper and Row, 1966).106. © Administrative Theories and Management Thought possible”.3! Moreover, it ig argued that the use of ideal types. alone joes not accomplish Weber’s theory-building objectives. 6, |LaPalombara holds that the Weberian bureaucracy “may be a less (Grea Rcacious Tstrament of economic change”: Citing an example of India, he adds that “in a place like India, public administrators steeped in the tradition of the Indian Civil Service may be less useful as development entrepreneurs than those who are not so rigidly tied to notions of bureaucratic status, hierarchy, and impartiality.”3? The bureaucratic model, developed by Weber, predominates in the business practice of the capitalist world. Following this line of reasoning, for example, Hummel, in his study of bureaucratic experience, outlined several effects of bureaucratic organization on people:3 The top-down structuring of work creates the kind of passivity where employees wait for the hierarchy to tell them what to do. The self-concept of the functionary in bureaucracy develops in terms of organizational identity, integration, and similarity in relation to the rest of organization. In this way, bureaucracy creates dependency of the individual self on structures of the organization. People are viewed as interchangeable functional elements of a system, and qualitative differences between them do not make a functional difference. Quantitative measurement is a standard for what is real. By instilling the practice of analogous thinking, bureaucrats are trained to act only when they recognize aspects of reality, matching predefined models for action. 7. Although Weber admires the rationality and efficiency of bureaucratic organizations, he also associates bureaucracy with an oppressive routine adverse to personal freedom.34 He observes that bureaucracy has penetrated all social institutions, public and private, and that it limits individual freedom, renders the individual incapable of understanding his own activities in relation to the organization as a whole, and favours the “crippled personality” of the specialist.35 Despite all the differences previously noted, Weber’s model of bureaucratic form of organization has gained widespread recognition in the 31. Mowzelis, op. cit, pp. 47-48. 32, Joseph LaPalombara, “Political development: Approaches to theory and strategy”, in John D, Montgomery and William. J. Siffins (Eds.), Approaches to Development: Politics, Administration and Change (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p.’29. 33, R. Hummel, The Bureaucratic Experience, ‘th ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 34. Gerth and Mills, From Max Weber, op. cit, p. 50. 35. Mouzelis, Organization and Bureaucracy, op. cit, p. 19.Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory e 107 practice of organization, both in the developed and the developing countries. His miodel continues to influence the development of modern organization and administration. i Weber correctly maintains that “a fully developed bureaucratic administration stands in the same relationship to non-bureaucratic forms as machinery to non-mechanical modes of production”. According to Weber, the bureaucratic form makes the members of the administrative staff work efficiently when they possess the requisite skills and know-how, and use them rationally. Weber's bureaucratic model has been criticized because of its stress on formalism. However, it has been rightly added by Albrow that “the formal rationality has increased manifold in the present day administration. Thanks to the advancement of management techniques”.>6 Weber’s principles on bureaucratic form of organization have been subjected to severe criticism, but it would be wrong to look upon them only from strictly negative positions. Some of his principles tend to rationalize the functioning of public organizations. Weber’s work appears to be the source of inspiration for the scholars of organization. WEBER’S PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS AND BUREAUCRACY Weber is also acknowledged as one of the founders of modern social science. Apart from his writings on sociology, law, religion, and bureau- cracy, his political writings are also significant to the literature on social science, Law, according to Weber, is not just a political phenomenon. It exists along with coercive means. Conversely, the state has at its disposal means of greater effectiveness than coercive ones. Weber defines the State in terms of the use of violent force. The state’, according to Weber, represents the monopoly of the legitimate use of force over a giyen territory and is an ‘ultimate’ in that it cannot be integrate | into a more comprehensive Whol 37 The ‘nation’, however, has more than coercive control over a territory; it is also a community which produces a feeling of solidarity. The state can survive only if it can harness the solidary feelings of national community and culture in support of its power. Weber contends that the state should serve national and cultural values and that politics is the appropriate sphere for the pursuit of these non-material values.7* He holds that conflict should be encouraged because the highest qualities of life (i.c., qualities of inde- - pendence) can be developed only through conflict. 36. Martin Albrow, Bureaucracy (London: Macmillan, 1970). 37. Gerth and Mills, op. cit., p. 48. 38. Beetham, op. cit., p. 44. 39. Ibid. pp. 39-42.108 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought Weber attaches importance to democracy as a postulate of practical reason. It is to be preferred simply because it is the only reasonable alternative to_aythoritarianism. Democracy permits mass involvement and it is consistent with the requirements of modem institutions and their demands for equality of status. He supports democracy as a means of providing leadership for national ends, but warns against viewing democracy as a panacea for society’s ills. He argues that democracy is governed by the “law of the small number”—that politics is controlled from top by a small number of people. Democracy changes the rules for the selection of a leader, but leaders are still selected.*! The influence of a democratic elite is viewed by Weber as not only inevitable but_necessary. He says that political leadership is required to ensure the supremacy of the political leadership over the bureaucrats. It is also required to ensure the supremacy of the political leadership over the economic forces by focussing on social unity in the face of the divisiveness of class and material interests.” Although, Weber warns against the evils of leaderless democracy, he argues that democracy requires charismatic leadership. The charismatic leader is one who is truly destined to rule and is suited for his tasks by supernatural gifts. According to Weber, the politician should combine passion with a sense of responsibility. He must fight vanity and avoid seeking power for the sake of power. Indeed, Weber admitted that bureaucracy could become mankind's i * whose rigidity would easily snuff out human feelings and Weber was averse to bureaucratic domination. He believes bureaucrats to be along with feudal lords, the primary exponents of power and prestige for their own political structure.“ The aggrandizement of bureaucracy can subvert the rule of law since the bureaucracy which cannot be controlled becomes a law unto itself. Moreover, he contends that knowledge becomes an instrument of political power, and secrecy protects the official’s monopoly on information. Weber himself admits that bureaucratic machine which is part of the social structure is difficult to destroy. It is the means for achieving rationally ordered societal action, Nevertheless, the bureaucrat is also part of a community of functionaries who have an interest in seeing that the bureaucratic machine continues to function. These bureaucrats may become a privileged class and use their positions for personal gain. As a power group, bureaucrats may develop a code of honour that includes not only a sense of duty but also a belief in the superiority of their own 40. Tbid., pp. 104-105 41. Ibid, p. 103. 42. Ibid, p. 217. 43. For discussion of ‘iron cage’, see, Jay Klagge, “Approaches to the iron cage: Reconstructing the bars of Weber’s metaphor”, Administration and Society, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1997, pp. 63-77. 44, Gerth and Mills, op. cit, p. 160.= Chapter 9 Max Weber: The Bureaucratic Theory @ 109 Revoliv" Mow of Ceol taste” qualifications. Once in power, the bureaucrats are difficult to dislodge because few among the governed can master the tasks performed by them, Democracy, on the contrary, requires the prevention of the status group of officials from taking power and the minimization of the authority of officialdom. An important question for Weber is how to prevent the bureaucracy (bureaucrat or official) from exceeding its power and functions or, stated conversely, how to maintain the supremacy of the politics (politician). Weber asserts that the official, according to his proper vocation, should not engage in politics. He should engage only in the impartial administration of his office.“ The honour of the civil servant, Weber says, is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of superior authorities exactly as if the order agreed with his own convictions. If the official receives orders with which he disagrees, he should make his views known to his superior; but if the superior insists, the official must comply to the best of his capability. In other words, a sense of duty should prevail over personal view. This should be an integral part of the civil s ethic. Bureaucracy, Weber maintains, can be controlled only from the top, Democracy requires charismatic leadership as the best hope. Politicians are the indispensable counterweight to bureaucracy, and both parliamentary and plebiscitary bases of leadership are necessary to prevent rule by a clique of political notables and governmental officials who will control the rule of law rather than be subject to it. Conclusion Most studies of formal features of organizations, after the Second World War have started from the work of Max Weber who, undoubtedly, appears to be the source of inspiration for the scholars of bureaucracy. Weber’s importance lies in having made the first attempt to produce systematic categories for organizational analysis? His genius lies in associating “the mechanisms of bureaucracy with familiar concepts of justice, such as due process and equal application of the law, thus lending bureaucratic ganization a significance that transcends even considerations of rationality and_efficiency” 7 Bendix observes: “In the present era of scientific specialization, he (Weber) appears already like a man of the Renaissance, San SI who took all humanity for his pr 45, Beetham, op. cit., p. 73. 46, Gerth and Mills, op. cit, p. 95 47. Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), p. 20. 48, Bendix, op. cit, p. 457. 49. DS. Pugh, D.J. Hickson and C.R. Hinings (Eds.), Writers on Organizations, 2nd ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971), p. 23 50. Brian Fry, Mastering Public Administration (New Jersey: Chatham House, 1989), p. 42. 51. Bendix, op. cit, p. 469.CHAPTER 10 Frederick Taylor The Scientific Theory of Management Introduction Two major ‘sub-groupings’ of “the classical approach are: Scientific Management (founded by Frederick W. Taylor) and Bureaucracy (formu- lated by Max Weber). Scientific Management (coined by Louis Brandeis) was perceived as a way to achieve greater efficiency in the management of public business. The objective of Scientific Management was to discover the basic principles of motion involved in the performance of physical tasks and then to determine the “one best way” of performing any task. A major contributor to this approach was Frederick Taylor (1856-1915), who saw Scientific Management as a ‘mental revolution’ in which a scientific approach could be brought to bear not only on the performance of physical tasks but on all social problems. Frederick Taylor is considered the Father of Scientific Management. Predecessors to Taylor were Charles Babbage! (1792-1871), an English mathematician, Henry R. Towne? American industrialist and engineer, , Captain Henry Metcalfe? and Frederick Halsey.4 1. Babbage in his ‘On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures’ (1832), tried to apply to industry his own principles of generalizations. 2. As early as 1870, Towne began the systematic application of efficient management methods in his’ Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, and his paper \'The Engineer as an Economist’ (1886) probably inspired Taylor. He is considered the pioneer of scientific management. 3. Metcalfe’s book, ‘The Cost of Manufactures and the Administration of Workshops, Public and Private’ (1885) was hailed as a pioneer work in the areas of management science. . 4. Halsey’s ‘Premium Plan’, a new concept in wage payment, had a major influence in the United States and Great Britain, and along with Taylor's ideas on pieces rates, it served as a model for many subsequent pay schemes, 110Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management @ 111 Eventful Years Frederick Taylor was born in Philadelphia (USA) on 22 March 1856 into a family with deep roots in American culture and a strong religious heritage. Although Taylor was rather austere in his personal life, sports were his extracurricular activity. His interest in mechanical inventions was manifested in his sports activity. At the age of 16, he entered Phillips Exeter Academy to prepare for the study of law (he suffered from a vision problem owing to studying too much by kerosene lamp) and passed the entrance examination to Harvard University, but chose to become an apprentice machinist. 1874, At the age of 18, Taylor started his career as an apprentice machinist at the Enterprise Hydraulic Works (a small firm in Philadelphia). 1878. He joined the Midvale Steel Works as an ordinary labourer in 1878 and rose rapidly to become chief engineer in 1884, Taylor's supervisory style was authoritarian in nature but launched an attack on ‘systematic soldiering’ which led him to institute two components of Scientific Management: time-and-motion studies and a piecework incentive plan. 1883. Taylor received a degree in mechanical engineering through evening study from Stevens in 1883. In 1886, he joined the American Society for Mechanical Engineers and presented in 1895 his first paper titled “A Piece Rate System”. 1890. Taylor joined a manufacturing investment company in 1890 and left it in 1893 to become a consulting engineer, introducing various elements of Scientific Management in a number of firms, 1898. At Bethlehem Steel Company which he entered in 1898, Taylor applied the basic ideas of Scientific Management. 1901. After Taylor left Bethlehem in 1901 until his death on 28 March 1915, he spent his life basically as a publicist, educator, and social reformer in advancing the cause of Scientific Management. Taylor did not drink alcohol, coffee or tea, and believed in hard work, and in doing things that were monotonous and unpleasant towards character building. Taylor ranked character, common sense, and education, in that order, as the elements of a good man.5 Taylor’s Major Works 1. Shop Management (1903): A paper entitled “A piece rate system” read to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 5. Frank B. Copley, Frederick W. Taylor: Father of Scientific Management, Vol. 1 (New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1923), p. 126. iui112 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought 2. The Principles of Scientific’ Management (1911): This was written in 1909 but published in 1911. 3. Testimony before the Special House Committee (1912): It consisted largely of a justification of his views of shop management in light of public attack. 4. Scientific Management (1947): This is 2 volume containing the above three documenis, with a Foreword by Harlow S. Person. DEVELOPMENT OF TAYLOR’S SHOP SYSTEM Causes of Inefficiency and Antagonism The unifying theme of Taylor's work is how to increase the ‘efficiency’ of workers who are habitually lazy. Taylor suggests three causes of inefficiency and antagonism: 1, A belief of the worker that any increase in output would inevitably result in unemployment. 2. The defective systems of management which restrict worker’s output because of ‘systernatic soldiering* 3. Inefficient rule-of-thumb effort-wasting methods of work. Taylor blames both the management and the worker for inefficiency. Management, Taylor charges, is deficient both in terms of its lack of knowledge as to what constitutes a proper day’s work and in its indifference about proper managerial practices. The worker contributes to the problem of inefficiency through ‘systematic soldiering’ or the purposeful and organized restriction of output. Taylor argues that under the best of traditional managerial practices—initiative and incentive _management—too much responsibility is placed on the worker. Taylor contends that under initiative and incentive management, a worker is.simply hired and sent out to perform specified tasks with little in the way of instruction or guidance from the management, The result is all too often inefficiency. Taylor characterizes initiative and incentive management as a flazy manager’s philosophy”/in which management has shirked its primary responsibilities in regard to job design. Methods for Development. of Shop System Taylor conceived it to be the objective of Scientific Management to overcome these shortcomings. He perforined the first.pioneering experiment at Midvale Steel Company in the machine shop, and still more important experiments at Bethlehem Steel. Works. After long research and a series of 6. Ibid., p.241Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management @ 113 experiments, he developed high-speed cutting steel, improved the design of machine tools, and set forth specific methods for the most efficient use of the improved tools. In a more s: ematized form, these experiments led him to’the development of a coordinated system of ‘shop management’. From this shop approach, he converted his views and concepts to a philosophy better known as Scientific Management. Following are the methods involved in the development of his shop system: @ i) Git) (iv) w) Use of scientific research methods. Taylor proposes that managers can use scientific research methods to find out the best . way to finish every piece of work. Aécording to him, stopwatch studies of various performances permitted the determination of a reliable standard of output. In this way, Taylor feels that one could scientifically discover ‘the one best method’ for finishing work in the shortest possible time. Standardization of tools and materials, Taylor maintains that average output per man increases if management also standardizes tools in light of the needs of specific jobs. He contends that such techniques as instruction cards, routing sequences, material specifi- cations, material-handling standards, and inventory control systems can make standards of worker's performance meaningful. Selection and training of workers. Taylor attaches great importance to choosing the right man for the right job. He insists that management must give each worker the formal training and specific instructions on precisely how to perform every piece of work with the standardized tools and materials. Need for good supervision and working conditions. Taylor sees the need for equally good supervision of-a worker and his working @onditions. From this need he expands his concept of “functional foremanship”, with specialists’ employed in every phase of supervision to ensure good work performance. Payment in accordance with output. ‘Taylor recognizes the need for a system of paying workers in accordance with their output instead of the mere number of hours worked. The essence of all these plans is the payment of bonuses and premiums to workers who meet or exceed the defined task. Further, Taylor writes that “each man in the gang becomes far less efficient than when his personal ambition is stimulated”. He should be paid in accordance with his individual output rather than the output of the group to which he belongs.? 7. Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1911), pp. 72-73114 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought Taylor maintains and attempts to demonstrate that through these combination of methods it would be possible to achieve dramatic increase in efficiency. However, management alone can be responsible for carrying these methods into effect. Taylor writes: It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adaptation of the best implements and working conditions and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adaptation of standards and of enforcing this cooperation rests with the management alone. In other words, management is first to make itself efficient before expecting efficiency from the workers. Once the proper method has been discovered, workers are simply responsible for executing the plan. CONCEPT AND PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT That efficiency goals could be realized by scientific means justified the professionalization of management. Taylor’s Concept of Management Taylor views management as the process of getting things done by people operating independently or in groups. According to George, Taylor’s approach to the managerial problem is direct and simple: define the problem, analyze the work situation in all its facets, apply measuring devices to all facets capable of being measured, experiment by holding all aspects of the job constant except-one which would be varied, develop a guide or principle of management from the obser- vations and study, and finally, prove the validity of the principle by subsequent application. We Taylor's main thesis is that prosperity to the society can come only through the joint endeavour of the management and labour in the application of scientific methods. He calls for mental revolution on the part of both management and labour so that they might cooperate in the spirit of work harmony with a view to improving their respective lots—attaining high wages for labour and increased output at low costs for management. Taylor observes that management is neglecting its functions and pushing the burden of methods and output on labour. He declares that management must do the work of planning, organizing, controlling, deter- mining methods, and the like for which it is best suited. 8. Ibid, p. 83 9. Claude S. George, Jr. The History of Management Thought (New Delhi: Prentice- Hall of India, 1974), pp. 147-148.Chapter 10_Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management _e 115 Principles of Scientific Management Taylor observes: What the workmen want from their employers beyond anything else is high wages and what employers want from their workmen most of all is low labour cost of manufacture ....the existence or absence of these two elements forms the best index to either good or bad management. Taylor summarizes this approach in his famous statement of the principles of Scientific Management. These principles are: 1. Development of a science of management ~ 2. Scientific selection, training and development of the workers 3. Bringing science and the workers together _, 4. A uniform division of work and responsibility between manage- ment and workers. ng Development of a science of management. 1 Taylor’s view, the incentive of higher wages for producing more output is vitiated by being dependent on the initiative of workers themselves as the employers have no idea how much work can really be accomplished in a given period of time. This inadequacy can be remedied by the development of a scientific analysis for each element of a man’s work which replaces the old rule-of-thumb method. Taylor holds that the worker would receive higher wages than the average worker would receive in the unscientific factories. If he is unable to attain standard output, the worker will suffer a loss of income. Scientific selection, training and development of the workers. To enable the workman eam a high rate of pay, it is imperative that he be scientifically selected to ensure that he possesses the requisite physical as well as mental qualities. Taylor holds that it is the responsibility of management to train and develop workers and place them in work situations so that they do “the highest, most interesting and most profitable class of work.” Bringing science and the workers together. Close cooperation should exist between those who plan the work (management) and those who do the work (workers), so that they cooperate in the spirit of work harmony for improving the lots of both labour and the management. Taylor holds that this process of securing cooperation causes the mental revolution. A uniform division of work and responsibility between management and workers. And finally management and workers should share equal responsibility—with each sector performing the work for which it is best suited. With this intimate cooperation, the opportunities for discord and 10. Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1919), pp. 36-37.116 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought conflict are almost eliminated since the exercise of this authority is not arbitrary. Thus, under Scientific Management, science would replace the rule- of-thumb, harmony would replace discord, cooperation would replace indivi- dualism, maximum output would replace restricted output, and each man would be developed to his greatest efficiency and prosperity.” In his quest for a science of management, Taylor discovered or imple- mented a series of innovations pertaining to the machinery of production, the organizational environment, and the people who used the machines. Some of these developments include the invention of mechanical devices, the development of cost accounting techniques, machine-room layout and design, purchase and store methods, tool standardization and tool-room reorganization, and mnemonic classification systems. COMPONENTS OF SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT Taylor’s Scientific Management comprises mainly three components: 1. Time-and-motion studies 7 2. Wage-incentive system ~ 3. Functional organization. ~ Time-and-Motion Studies Taylor attributes nine-tenths of the problem of inefficiency to the manage- ment’s ignorance as to the proper time required to perform a task.'? Accordingly, a primary task for Scientific Management is to establish appro- priate standards based on scientific investigations of tasks performed using optimal methods rather than simple observations of actual performance in the workplace. The primary tool of analysis in these investigations is time- and-motion studies. The general procedures employed in time-and-motion studies is to break down physical activities into their component parts, specify the optimal routine for the performance of each component part, and discover the most efficient method for recombining the parts with the more complex task. For Taylor, the following steps are involved in the time-and- motion studies: . The worker is provided with the best implements. The task is divided into elementary units. Useless movements are discarded. The analyst studies a skilled workman performing the task with the help of a stopwatch. aeNe LL. Ibid, p. 140. 12, Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific Management (New York: Harper, 1911); p. 25.Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management # 117 5. The elementary movements of the task are grouped in a proper sequence to maximize overall efficient task performance. 6. The proper method of task performance is recorded and the time required to perform the task is determined. 7. An allowance to the extent of 20 to 27 per cent should be added to the actual working time to allow for unavoidable delays. 8. Allowances should be made for the time it takes a new employee to learn the job. 7 9. Allo\.ance should be made for rest required for a worker to recover from body fatigue.'3 The intent of time-and-motion study is to establish standards for the performance of a task, accounting for the capacity, speed, and durability of the worker. Thus standards established are to be accepted only conditionally. Those standards are not to be altered, however, unless a new method of performing the task is discovered. This is required to prevent arbitrary changes in standards as productivity increases. In his famous studies at the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Taylor found that a group of 75 men were loading an average of 12'/, tons of pig iron per man per day. On the other hand, a Di labourer called Schmidt, selected by Taylor, increased his output to 47!/) tons per day for the three years of the study by following detailed instructions as to handling of pig iron. One by one other men were selected and trained to handle pig iron at the rate of 47") tons per day and, in return, like Schmidt, they received a 60 per cent increase in wages. Taylor drew attention to the need for the scientific selection of the workers. Wage-incentive System As stated earlier, Taylor’s incentive system is based on the established standards of work performance through time-and-motion studies. Under this the worker is assigned a defined task with detailed instructions and a specified time allowed to perform the task. When this has been accomp- lished, the worker is to be paid extraordinary wages for performing the task in the allotted time and ordinary wages if the time allotment is exceeded.!4 Taylor was against the method of award for day work, piecework, and task work with a bonus or differential piecework, He also objected to gain- sharing plans, such as those ‘suggested by Towne and Halsey.'5 In Taylor's 13. Copley, op. cit, p. 227. 14, Taylor contends that if the worker finishes the task in the allotted time without imperfections, a bonus of 30 to 100 per cent of the base pay is carned with the specific amount of the bonus dependent on the work involved. 15. Daniel Nelson, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), pp. 14-16.118 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought views, factors such as special incentives, higher wages, shorter working hours, better working conditions, and individual reward for the worker based on performance—all overshadow the importance of the specific method of payment. "Taylor would have incentives based on prior standards of work performance with each worker rewarded on an individual basis and performance linked reward. Thus, under Taylor’s incentive system, like other pay plans, success is rewarded by higher wages and failure is penalized by financial loss. Functional Organization Concept of functional foremanship. Taylor recognizes the need for good supervision of a worker. For this need he expands his concept of ‘functional foremanship’. Taylor felt that under the previous practices a ‘military model of management had prevailed, stressing unity of command at each level of the organization. Under this arrangement, foremen were often hired on a contract basis and simply charged with getting the work done, with little direction from the management.'® He found this arrangement to be deficient on two accounts, First, such an arrangement demands an undue amount of technical expertise from top management. Second, it expects too much from the foreman and, as a result, effectively precludes direct control by management over the workers. Consequently, Taylor proposes both a decentralization of authority from general management and a centralization of authority from the foreman. In the process, he divides the tasks previously performed by the foreman and allocates them to a number of functional foremen. The decentralization aspect of Taylor’s functional organization is the establishment of a cadre of technical experts in positions of power in the organization. Taylor introduces the idea of functional foremanship under which workers would be responsible simultaneously to eight different technical experts in positions of power in the organization. This power is not to be vested in the top level of the organization but in a planning department, and authority is to be exercised on the basis of knowledge, not mere position. The experts in the planning department are to be relatively free from bureaucratic controls exercised from above. Organizational executives are to confine themselves to handling problems that cannot be handled in the planning department. Top executives are to have a general knowledge of all the steps necessary in the accomplishment of organi- zational activities. But operational contro! for top executives is to be based on the exception principle! 16. Nelson, op. cit, p. 7. 17. Copley, op. cit, p. 302.Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management @ 119 In his system of management, Taylor favours the use of the exception principle, and lays down that management reports should be condensed into comparative summaries, recording only the excepti oth good and bad) to past standards or averages. This could help the manager in Tooking at the progress of his shop. The planning department is assigned a wide range of functions including performing time-and-motion studies, maintaining proper inventory levels, providing for the maintenance of equipment, analyzing orders for machines or work, and establishing a system of classification for materials and equipment. Foremen (Planning). Of the eight functional foremen, only four are to be assigned the planning department: the route clerk, the instruction card man, the time clerk, and the disciplinarian.'* The route clerk has the responsibility to oversee the workflow, study specific jobs and decide the best method of doing them, indicate the tools to be used, make a chart showing the course of work through the shop, and determine the order in which various jobs are to be performed. The instruction card man is to study the drawings and worksheet made by the route clerk, prepare detailed instructions for the performance of each operation, and show the length of time required for each operation. The time clerk would be responsible for preparing pay and written reports, reviewing time cards to determine eligibility for bonuses, and allocating work costs to the proper accounts. The disciplinarian is to be responsible for reviewing disputes between workers and their supervisors, hiring and firing, and looking into other personnel issues. Foremen (Shop floor). The other four functional foremen—the gang boss, the speed boss, the inspection foreman, and the repair boss—are to serve on the shop floor. These foremen are to be responsible for the proper execution of the plan. The gang boss is to ensure the job, organize the required machinery for the job, give instruction cards to the workers, and route the work through the shop The speed boss is to see to it that the job is performed in the prescribed fashion. In case of failure, the speed boss is responsible for ascertaining the causes and demonstrating that the work could be done in the allotted time. The inspection foreman is to analyze the products and to ensure that they conform to standards. The repair boss is to be responsible for the adjustment, cleanliness, and general care of the machines. In addition, the repair boss is to maintain a record of repairs and maintenance. 18, Ibid, pp. 324-325.120 ¢ Administrative Theories and Management Thought Taylor recommends that planning functions must be given special status in the organization so that at least the works could run smoothly. Taylor's preferred style of supervision for these functional foremen is to hold a plum for the worker to climb after, crack the whip with an occasional touch of the lash, and work shoulder to shoulder with the worker, pushing, teaching, guiding and helping. In other words, the worker is expected to do what he is told. In his new style of organization, Taylor is making the worker directly responsible to eight foremen. To avoid conflict, Taylor requires that the duties of the various foremen be precisely defined so that none interferes with the others. More important, Taylor argues that organizational hierarchy is to be based on abilities, with each individual encouraged to rise to his highest level~of competence; Indeed, Taylor encourages a higher ratio of brain workers to hand workers. Mechanics of Management Taylor warns against confusing the mechanisms of management with the philosophy of Scientific Management, which results from combination of four “great underlying principles of management”. Taylor specifies the following as some of the mechanisms. 1. Time study, with the implements and methods for properly making it. 2. Functional or divided foremanship and its superiority to the old- fashioned single foreman. 3. The standardization of all tools and implements used in the trades, and also of the acts or movements of workmen for each class of work. The desirability of a planning room or department. Use of the ‘exception principle’ in management. Use of the slide-rules and similar time-saving implements. Employing instruction cards for the workman. Using the task idea in management, accompanied by a large bonus for the successful performance of the task. Implementing the differential rate of payment. 10. Employing mnemonic systems for classifying manufactured products as well as implements used in manufacturing. 11. Using a routing system. 12. Employing a modern cost system, etc.!9 POI AAD 2 These mechanisms, Taylor says, do not themselves constitute scientific management but are useful adjuncts to scientific management. 19. Frederick W. Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Harper, 1911), pp. 36-37.(organization. Orshyyu'y, blu Terkwges _ Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management e 121 A comment. Although these three components—time-and-motion 9 studies, wage-incentive system, and functional organization—are central to Taylor's Scientific Management, yet these do not, in his opinion, capture the (_ essence of Scientific Management. For Taylor, Scientific Management is more than a “series of expedients to increase efficiency”. Instead, Scientific Management requires a menval revolution on the part of both management and workers. \~ Moral vePloh'on A CRITICAL EVALUATION Taylor is regarded as the founder of modern management thought. The ramifications of his ideas and their impact on the society are truly of staggering dimensions. The principles of scientific management and innovations he propounded in the last quarter of the 19th century form the bases of present management practices. Some regard him as the father of all present-day management, George comments: “Whatever role we may ascribe 7) fo him, he was without dispute a perfectionist and a master in his work, ( possessed with piercing insight and comprehension of the role of _ t management”? For labour, the Scientific Management resulted in better placement, more opportunities for development, higher wages, better working conditions, etc. For management, it has pointed the way to a more effective organization, an improved product, a better workforce, a better profit posi- tion, and an improved image.(Taylor's five concepts—research, standards, planning, control and cooperation—form the solid basis of every successful | Despite all this, Taylor’s ideas have been subjected to severe criticism. Resistance from the trade unions, Taylor’s approach to management was resented by the US trade unions who regarded it as a new means of intensifying the exploitation of the working class and even, as one of the Ue resolutions of the American Federation of Labour called it, “a diabolical Sree scheme for the reduction of the human being to the condition of a mere (4. machine." The workers were being asked to behave like machines and more mechanically in accordance with pre-ordained patterns. Resentment from the managers. Taylor's methods were not only resented by gang bosses but also by higher ranks of the management. They heaped scorn on the rule-of-thumb method. Those who scaled to high managerial 20. George, op. cit, p. 94. 21, H.B. Maynard (Ed.), Industrial Engineering Handbook (New York: Publishers, 1956), Chapter I. p. 5.122 ¢ Administrative Theories and Management Thought positions, without the benefit of higher education and training, became sensitive to Taylor’s charge that they were unqualified to manage. It is interesting to note that Taylor was compelled: to leave his first position at the Midvale Steel Works because of friction with the company rhanager, and later the anti-Taylor sentiment among operating chiefs did not favour him to keep his job at Bethlehem Steel Works (the company terminated his services from 1 May 1901)» Problems of coordination, Taylor’s idea of functional foremanship represented a practical application of the idea of specialization and the belief that each person's work should, as far as possible, be confined to a single leading function. However, such an arrangement gives rise to problems of coordination, role conflict, and unity of command. The idea of functional foremanship appears not ‘become very popular and to have had little application in practice. Taylorism as management control. According to Braverman, Scientific Management starts from the capitalist point of view and the adaptation of labour to the needs of capital. He felt that Taylor’s conclusion was that workers should be controlled not only by the giving of orders and maintenance of discipline, but also by removing from them any decisions about the manner in which thei labour, and by dictating precise stages and methods for every aspect of work performance, management could gain control of the actual process of work. Congress committee's investigation into Taylor’s methods. The ideas of Scientific Management were also applied in the American Watertown Arsenal despite the lingering doubts of the benefits of paying bonuses based on methods which reduced time taken to finish a job. Also, the moulding workers reacted unfavourably to time-and-motion studies and almost resorted to a strike. The strike at Watertown Arsenal led to an investigation of Taylor's methods by a Special Committee of the US House of Represent- atives in 1912 on the intervention of labour unions. The conclusion of the Committee was that scientific management did provide some useful tech- niques and offered valuable organizational suggestions, but gave production managers a dangerously high level of uncontrolled power, Consequently, (Taylor’s methods of time study were banned in defence establishments by | the Senate. The Hoxie report. Taylorism also became the subject of special investigation by Prof. Robert Hoxie for the US Commission_on Industrial Relations.*4 The Hoxie report arrived at the conclusion that the approach of — = 22, J, Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1980). 23. H Braverman, Labour and Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974). 24. Robert F. Hoxie, Scientific Management and Labor (New York: D. Appleton, 1915).Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management e 123 Taylor and his associates concentrated on the mechanical and not on the human aspects of production. It also charged that the time study and task- setting were “special sport of individual judgement _and opinion, subject to all the possibilitie ity, inaccuracy and injustice that arise from human prejudice.” Further, Taylor’s approach to selection of workers, determination of normal times, and the fixing of allowances was regarded as largely arbitrary rather than based on scientific decisions. His sought performance standards, however did not reflect the “one best way” of performing a task: ~ Other criticisms, The classic Hawthorne investigations by Elton Mayo and other research studies on human relations also rejected the Taylor system. According to Mayo, logical factors are far less important than emotional factors in determining productive efficiency.” [Peter Drucker Jholds that the organization as conceived by Taylor becomes a piece of poor engineering judged by the standards of human 1 an relations, as ‘as well as by those of pro- ductive efficiency and output.76~ Behaviouralists such as Mayo, Follett, Sheldon, Barnard also rejected Taylor’s methods of Scientific Management as these were opposed to initiative and individual freedom of the worker. Taylor is described as ‘catalytic’ in the development of the traditional management school. Many of the practices and principles, of course, had been suggested previously. But Taylor’s genius lay in his “assimilation, § conceptualization and application of these ideas as_a_uni as_a unified approach to effective management”. In fairness to Taylor, “it must be said that his principles were often n inadequately understood. 7 a ~& form of capitalist exploitation. a SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT Industrial revolution, brought about primarily by the expansion of mechanical industries coupled with scientific advances, led to managerial problems. In their quest for solutions, the managers of industrial complexes started finding out management methods (one of the first management problems concerned wage systems). Management was becoming ‘things oriented’ instead of ‘firm oriented’ as it was in the past. The ground swell of management as a separate enterprise was gathering momentum. Persons like 25. Elton Mayo, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (Boston: Harvard University, 1945). 26. Quoted in, S.A. Sapre, F.W. Taylor—His Philosophy of Scientific Management (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1970), p. 25. 27. DS. Pugh, et al. (Eds.), Writers on Organizations (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), p. 101. 28. Samuel Haber, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era 1890-1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 65.124 ¢ Administrative Theories and Management Thought Towne and Metcalfe began to develop and apply a unified system of management@ Towne) called this new philosophy of management a management of science, of precision. He is considered to_be the pioneer of Scientific Management. The label, Scientific Management instead of Taylor's ‘task system’ term, was provided by Louis Brandeis in 1910. While using Taylor's ideas, he contented in the Eastern Rate Case that without any increase in rates the railroads could maintain their profits by introducing more efficient methods of operation. Taylor welcomed the more popular nomenclature. Soon after, Taylor declared that Catanagement i resting upon cl defined defined laws, rules and" principles.” fhe testimony to to the effectivene: Taylors ‘system led to the popularization of the term Scientific Management. One part of his testimony before the Special House Committee is parti- cularly appealing for its statement of what Scientific Management is not: Scientific management is not any efficiency device, not a device of any kind for securing efficiency; nor is it any bunch or group of efficiency devices. It is not a new system of figuring costs: it is not a new scheme of paying men; it is not a piecework system; it is not a bonus system; it is not a watch on a man and writing things down about him; it is not time study; it is not motion study nor an analysis of the movements of men; it is not the printing and ruling and unloading of a ton or two of blanks on a set of men and saying, “Here’s your system; go use it”. I believe in them: but what | am emphasizing is that these devices in whole or in part are not scientific management; they are useful adjuncts to scientific management, so are they also useful adjuncts of other systems of management. Now in its essence, scientific management involves a complete mental revolution on the part of the working man engaged in any particular establishment or industry—a complete mental revolution on the part of these men as to their duties toward their work, toward their fellow men, and toward their employers. This is the essence of scientific management, this great mental revolution2? Aims of St ntific Management Proponents of Scientific Management, in particular Taylor, enunciated the following aims of Scientific Management.° The objectives of Scientific Management are to: 1. Gauge industrial tendencies and the market in order to regularize operations in a manner which will conserve the investment, sustain 29, Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific Management (New York: Harper, 1947), pp. 26-27. 30. Harlow Person (Ed.), Scientific Management in American Industry (New, York: Harper, 1929), pp. 16-17.Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management # 125 10. lL. 12. 13. the enterprise as an employing agency, and assure continuous operation and employment. Assure the employee not only continuous operating and employ- ment by correct gauging of the market, but also to assure by planned and balanced operations a continuous earning opportunity while on the payroll. Earn through a waste-saving management and processing tech- nique, a larger income from a given expenditure of human and material energies, which shall be shared through increased wages and profits by workers and management. Make possible a higher standard of living as a result of increased income to workers. Assure a happier home and social life to workers through removal, by increase of income, of many of the disagreeable and worrying factors in the total situation. Assure healthful as well as individually and socially agreeable conditions of work. Assure the highest opportunity for individual capacity through scientific methods of work analysis and of selection, training, assignment, transfer and promotion of workers. Assure by training and instructional foremanship the opportunity for workers to develop new and higher capacities, and eligibility for promotion to higher positions. Develop self-confidence and self-respect among workers through opportunity afforded for understanding of one’s own work speci- fically, and of plans and methods of work generally. Develop (self-expression and self-realization) among workers through the stimulative influence of an atmosphere of research and valuation, through understanding of plans and methods, and through the freedom of horizontal as _well_as vertical contacts afforded by functional organization. Build character through the proper conduct of work. Promote justice through the elimination of discrimination in wage rates and elsewhere. Eliminate factors of the environment which are irritating and the causes of frictions, and to promote common understandings, tolerances and the spirit of teamwork. Impact of Scientific Management Scientific Management opened the way for improvement in successful ventures. It brought about a more effective use of labour, material and managerial capabilities. The movement preached the gospel of efficiency in the name of democracy. Efficiency became the watchword of the day, as the© GE (Rosedargues that the concept of a fair day's pay for a fair day’s work 3 126 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought Taft Committee on Economy and Efficiency was established at the federal level in the United States. Taylor’s system of management, based on scientific principles, promoted a new culture and values in sharp contrasts to those existing at the time. Scientific Management, for example, placed emphasis on eliminating wastes in effort, materials, time and skills. Taylor's concept of organization is thus one in which harmony is ensured through close and intimate cooperation between management and workers. As Taylor puts it: The majority of men believe that the fundamental interests of employees and employers are necessarily antagonistic. Scientific Management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the interests of the two are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long period of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee and vica versa.! Although Taylor stresses cooperation in the workplace, authority is not to be shared equally by management and the workers. For Taylor, manage- ment is a senior partner in a scientific enterprise in which management derives its authority from superior competence. He believes the worker to be less competent. Taylor sees the organization under Scientific Management as consti- tuting a mutually beneficial exchange with significant rewards accruing to both management and the workers. The benefits to management are an increase in output with lower labour costs. Similarly, the worker would receive higher compensation under Scientific Management. Taylor contends that under Scientific Management, workers would be given more interesting work that would more fully develop their talents. Moreover, it would produce not only a better worker but also a person who would be able to liye.better, save money, and become more sober? is not purely a technical matter. It is also a notion of soci Was disdainful of the union movement. Though he believes a useful role in relieving the worker of the worst excesses of managerial practices, he argues that they foster the restriction of output by making the work of the least efficient the standard of performance. In addition, Taylor accuses unions of employing abhorrent tactics. In his own words: “The boycott, the use of force or intimidation, and oppression of nonunion work- men by labour unions are damnable; these acts of tyranny are thoroughly un-American and will not be tolerated by the American people”. Taylor was in favour of establishment of a joint commission of employers and workers to achieve productivity, solve problems and redress grievances. 31. Frederick W. Taylor, op. cit, p. 10. 32. Ibid, p. 74. 33. M. Rose, Industrial Behavior, 2nd ed. (London: Heinemann, 1983). 34. Frederick W. Taylor, Shop Management (New York: Harper 1947), p. 191.Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management e 127 After his termination of services at Bethlehem in 1901, Taylor became increasingly concerned with promoting the cause of Scientific Management. Taylor's primary vehicle for promoting Scientific Management was a series of publications and his association with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) which he joined in 1880s. In his book Shop Management published by the ASME, Taylor’s emphasis began to shift from efficiency to the social implications of Scientific Management. In 1909, Taylor completed his best-known and most controversial work, The Principles of Scientific Management, (1911). In this work, Taylor completed a transition in which the social implications of Scientific Management were emphasized almost to the exclusion of technical matters. Taylor’s publications gained him some notoriety, but the Scientific Management movement acquired widespread public attention through hearings conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) on failway rates in 1910. In 1912, the US Congress launched an investigation into whether or not Scientific Management should be forbidden in govern- ment agencies. Taylor did testify at these hearings and was subjected to extensive, and often hostile, questioning by members of the House Investi- gating Committee. The hearings ended in amending the Army Appropria- tions Act (1915), prohibiting the use of stop-watches or payment of bonuses in army arsenals. The law remained in force until World War IL The practice of Scientific Management spread through business and government, In government there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the application of principles of Scientific Management in New York (New York’s City’s Bureau of Municipal Research) and in Philadelphia (a director of Public Works was appointed to institute Scientific Management procedures). A Taylor society was formed in 1911 to promote Scientific Management. Scientific methods, as developed by Taylor, influenced great leaders, among them are H.L. Gantt, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Bedaux, Halsey. They have developed Taylor’s thinking into such subjects as Work Study, Industrial Engineering, Personnel Management and Industrial Psychology, Organization and Methods, Production Control, etc. Probably the most extensive efforts were at federal shipyards and arsenals. Between 1906 and 1908, the Mare Island Shipyards near San Francisco became the first scientifically managed government plant.8 By 1908, the Watertown Arsenal in Massachusetts had become a model plant with a 50 per cent decrease in material cost and a doubling of output per man.36 It-may be added here that interest in Scientific Management also spread abroad: England, France, Soviet Union. Even in the Soviet Union, 35. Nelson, op. cit., p. 155. 36. Ibid., p. 166. a128 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought Lenin urged its application as part of a policy to centralize authority and as a necessary step on the road to socialism.37 The Principles of Scientific Management was translated into pine languages: French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Russian, Lettish, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese. Relevance of Scientific Management While Taylor’s work is subjected to a lot of criticism, it should be recognized that he was writing at a time of industrial growth and the emergence of complex organizations with new forms of technology. His main concern was with the efficiency of both workers and management. Taylor believed his Scientific Management techniques would improve } management-worker relations, and contribute to improved industrial efficiency and productivity. In this context, Drucker claims: Frederick Winslow Taylor may prove a more useful prophet for our times than we yet recognize ... Taylor’s greatest impact may still be ahead ... The underdeveloped and developing countries are now reaching, } the stage where they need Taylor and ‘Scientific Management’ ... But the need to study Taylor anew and apply him may be greatest in the developed countries. Drucker argues that the central theme of Taylor’s work was not inefficiency but the_need to substitute industrial_warfare_by industrial ) harmony. Taylor sought to do this through: higher wages from increased output; the removal of physical strain from doing work the wrong way; development of the workers and the opportunity for them to undertake tasks they were capable of doing; and elimination of the boss by the duty of management to help the workers. Taylor, in developing Scientific Management, made enormous contributions to the understanding of and prescriptions for, the management of organizations. Yet he is probably better characterized as a synthesizer than an innovator. In dealing with industrial unrest, Scientific Management | promoted and called for a new look of harmonious and whole-hearted cooperation in place of the old tendency toward rugged individualism. Further, Scientific Management, with its emphasis on research, planning, use of standards, and cooperation, encouraged management to take decisions on the basis of the laws of the situation instead of individual guess and intuition. i 37. Samuel Haber, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era 1890-1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 129. 38, PF, Drucker, Toward The Next Economics and Other Essays (London: Heinemann, 1981). 39. Brian R. Fry, Mastering Public Administration (New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, 1989), p. 68,Chapter 10 Frederick Taylor: The Scientific Theory of Management © 129 Characterizing the Scientific Management movement, Gross observes: In brief, scientific management became something of a ‘movement’. In an age of growing achievement in the physical sciences, it offered the hope of resolving industrial problems also through the use of objective principles. For young and imaginative engineers it provided an ethos and a mission in life... It had a major influence on the growing reform and economy movements in public administration.“ The Scientific Management movement spread far beyond the borders of the United States, and gained wide recognition in Germany, England, France, Sweden and other European countries. In Russia, immediately after the revolution of 1917, Lenin referred to the Taylor system, as “a combination of subtle brutality of bo Bourgeois exploitation a and a number of its i AT He and Trotsky sponsored a state-led wnt aimed at promoting labour discipline and higher productivity. In conclusion, the views and concepts generated by Scientific Management, though new and radical at that time, are commonplace today and are accepted as standards for managerial practice. And this acceptance in itself is indicative of the total effect of Scientific Management. The principles of Taylor’s scientific approach to management appear to be very relevant today. Many of Taylor’s ideas are accepted by present-day managers. We can still see examples of Taylorism alive and well, and management practices based on the philosophy of his ideas. Taylor gave a major impetus to the development of modern management thinking. Not only do Taylor's ideas and concepts continue to have appeal in business management and in public administration, but they actually have drawn increased scholarly attention in the past twenty years.4? 40, Bertram M. Gross, The Managing of Organizations, Vol. | (London: Free Press, 1964), pp. 127-128. 41. VL Lenin. “The immediate tasks of the Soviet Government,” in Collective Works, Vol. 27, p. 259. 42, Recently a four-volume anthology containing articles and chapters by and about Taylor from 1912 to 2000 was published. See, John Wood and Michael Wood (Eds.), FW. Taylor: Critical Evaluation in Business and Management (London: Routledge, 2002).CHAPTER 1] Henri Fayol Principles of Administration Introduction Whereas Frederick Taylor (an American) emphasized mote of scientific management so as to produce maximum output from each worker, Max Weber (a German) put more stress on bureaucracy as a rational means of achieving efficiency, Henri Fayol (a Frenchan) placed more emphasis on flexible principles of administration so as to produce maximum output from an organization. Fayol is credited to have developed a systematic theory of Giatstraton and is regarded as the father of the modern management ) theory. Eventful Years Henri Fayol (1841-1925) was born of a French bourgeois family in 1841. Beginning his career in 1860 as a mining engineer in the Commentry mine pits of the SA Commentry-Fourchambault, he had risen to the position of Managing Director in 1888, which he held until his retirement in 1918. His managerial talents pushed his organization from the verge of bankruptcy to the pinnacle of a successful and profitable organization. With the translation of his classic Administration Industrielle et Generale (1916) in English in 1949, Henri Fayol rose into prominence in the field of management. It is a pity that the original ‘administration’ was translated into English as ‘management’ and riot ‘administration’. Though he remained director of the mining firm, he devoted the seven remaining years of his life to the organization of the Comite National de L’ Organization Francaise (Centre of Administrative Studies) and endea- voured to apply his basic ideals to pubic administration in France. In 1921, 130~~, oar Chapter 1i__Henri Fayol: Principles of Administration ¢ 131 Fayol was awarded a Nobel Prize for his research in metallurgy. He died in 1925, Fayol’s Major Works Fayol published a dozen papers in mining engineering and geology areas. His important works on administration include: 1. General and Industrial Management (1916): This work first appeared as Administration Industrielle et Generale in the Bulletin of the Societe de L’ Industrie Minerale in 1916. It was subse- quently republished in France in 1925 and translated into English first in 1929, and later in 1949 by Constance Storrs, with an introduction by L. Urwick. 2. The Administrative Theory of the State (1923): This publication is an address presented to the International Conference of Administrative Science at Brussels in 1923. It was translated by Sarah Greer and appeared in the collection, Papers on the Science of Administration, edited by L. Gulick and L. Urwick. 3. General Principles of Administration (1908): This paper appeared in Jubilee Congress of the Societe de L’Industrie Minerale. It may be mentioned here that Fayol used the French word ‘administration’ which has somehow been translated as ‘management’ The first book, General and Industrial Management is organized into four parts: Part 1 : Necessity and Possibility of Teaching Management Part I: Principles and Elements of Management Part III : Personal Observations and Experience Part IV. : Lessons of the War. APPROACH TO ADMINISTRATION No Distinction between Management and Public Administration Although Fayol draws a distinction between government and administration, restricting the concept ‘administration’ to a narrow sense, he uses it much more broadly and identifies it with ‘management’. Fayo! observes that administration is an activity common to ail human undertakings, whether in the home, business, or government. He notes further that all these undertakings require planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling, and in order that these function properly, “all must observe the132 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought same general principles”.! General principles can be applied equally well to pubiic and to private affairs.* Fayol maintains that “there is no one doctrine of administration for business and another for affairs of state; administrative doctrine is essential”. The major task of organization, according to Fayol, is to develop the personnel so that they are able to carry out the essential functions of an enterprise. He prefers to regard the administrative structure as a ‘body corporate’ and compares the administrative function with the nervous system of an animal. Essential Activities of an Industrial Undertaking Fayol divides the total industrial undertaking into six separate activities, of which administration is only one. These are: Technical (production, manufacture) Commercial (buying, selling, exchange) Financial (search for and optimum use of capital) Security (protection of property and persons) Accounting (stocktaking, balance sheet, costs, statistics) Administrative (which operates only on personnel). aYvaene Elements of Administration Fayol indicates that the last of these—the administrative activity—is by far the most important and deserves most attention. He develops this aspect further and indicates that administration (administrative activity) is made up of five elements: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling, and elaborates on each as follows: @ Planning. It is an exercise of “examining the future and drawing up a plan of action”. Fayol also states that unity, continuity, flexibility and precision are the broad features of a good plan of action. . (il) Organizing. It means “building up a dual structure (human and material) to achieve the undertaking”. Further, Fayol indicates that the organizer or manager has 16 managerial or administrative duties to perform: 1. Ensure that the plan is judiciously prepared and strictly carried out. 2. See that the human and material organization is consistent with the objectives, resources, and requirements of the concern. 1, Henri Fayol, “The administrative theory in the state”, in L. Gulick and L, Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937). 2. Bertram M. Gross, The Managing of Organizations, Vol. 1 (London: Free Press, 1964), p. 131.Chapter 11_Henri Fayol: Principles of Administration e 133 Set up a single, competent, energetic building authority. Harmonize activities and coordinate efforts. Formulate clear, distinct, precise decisions. Arrange for efficient selection of personnel—each department must be headed by a competent, energetic man; each employee must be in that place where he can render greatest service. 7. Define duties clearly. 8. Encourage a liking for initiative and responsibility. 9. Have fair and suitable recompense for services rendered. 10. Make use of sanctions against faults and errors. 11. See to the maintenance of discipline. . 12. Ensure that individual interests are subordinated to the general interest. 13. Pay special attention to the unity of command. 14. Supervise both material and human order. 15, Have everything under control. 16. Fight against excess of regulations, red tape and paper control.3 aay (iil) Commanding. It implies maintaining activity among the personnel of the organization. Fayol claims that the manager who has to command should: 1. have a thorough knowledge of his personnel; 2. eliminate the incompetent; 3. be well versed in the agreements binding the business and its employees; set a good example; 5. conduct periodic audits of the organization and use summarized charts; and 6. bring together his chief assistants by means of conferences, at which units of direction and focusing of effort are provided for.4 Human element is of critical importance to administration. Fayol suggests six types of abilities which an administrator or a manager must possess. These are: 1. Physical qualities: health, vigour and appearance. 2. Mental qualities: ability to lear and understand, judgement, mental vigour and adaptability. 3. Claude S: George, Jr, The History of Management Thought (New Delhi: Prentice- Hall of India, 1974), p. 112. 4, Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management (London: Sit Isaac Pitman, 1949), p. 97.134 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought 3. Moral qualities energy, initiative, willingness to accept res- ponsibility, tact. 4. General education : general acquaintance with matters not belonging exclusively to the function performed. 5. Special knowledge : technical, commercial, financial, mana- gerial, etc. 6. Experience : knowledge arising from the work proper. (iv) Coordinating. It consists of working together, and harmonizing all activity and effort. Fayol recommends weekly meetings of department heads and liaison officers to improve coordination. (¥) Controlling. 1 consists of verifying whether everything occurs in conformity with the plan adopted, the instructions issued and the principles established. The managerial activities, as spelt out by Fayol are depicted in Figure 11.1. . Financial MANAGER'S ACTIVITIES Managerial/Administrative * Planning ‘* Organization * Command * Coordination * Control Figure 11.1 Activities of an industrial undertaking (Henri Fayol). Need for Administrative Training Fayol seems to be the first writer in pleading for administrative training of all employees at all levels. Administrative ability cannot be developed through technical knowledge alone. He writes: “Everyone needs some concepts of administration; in the home, in affairs of State, the need for administrative ability is in proportion to the importance of the undertaking,Chapter 11 Henri Fayol: Principles of Administration ¢ 135 and for individual people the need is everywhere greater in accordance with the position occupied”. Fayol becomes critical of civil engineering colleges in France for not including administration in their syllabi. He suggests the teaching of administration even in primary schools. Flexible Principles of Administration Fayol was determined to develop an administrative theory. With this view he propounded 14 principles of administration. He says that these principles are flexible and capable of adaptation to every need. These are now described. Division of work. According to Fayol, specialization belongs to the natural order. The division of work between the worker and the manager increases their output. The worker always works on the same part, the manager always deals with the same matters, Thus both of them acquire an ability, sureness, an accuracy which increase their output. Each change of work brings in its train and adaptation, which reduces output... yet division of work has its limits, which experience and a sense of proportion teach us may not be exceeded. Authority and responsibility. Fayol defines authority “as the right to give orders and power to exact obedience”. While distinguishing ‘official’ autho- rity (derives from the office a person holds) from the ‘personal’ authority (based on his intelligence, experience and personal abilities), Fayol is of the view that people in an organization seek more authority and fear responsi- bility. This fear of responsibility paralyzes initiative. Hence, he suggests that special steps must be taken to induce people to accept responsibility while wielding authority. Responsibility is a corollary of authority. Discipline. Discipline is essential for the smooth running of administration. To Fayol, discipline is what leaders make it. He sees discipline in terms of ‘obedience’. Good discipline is the result of (a) effective leadership, (b) a clear understanding between management and workers regarding the organization’s rules, and (c) the judicious use of penalties for infractions of the rules, Unity of command. In contrast to Taylor’s functional authority, Fayol maintains that “an employee should receive orders from one superior only”. According to him: “A body with two heads is in the social as in the animal sphere a monster and has difficulty in surviving”. Emphasizing on the importance of unity of command, Fayol writes, “should it (unity of command) be violated, authority is undermined, discipline is in jeopardy, order disturbed and stability threatened”.136 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought Unity of direction. Fayol insists that there should be “one head and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective.” For him, “unity of command cannot exist without unity of direction, but does not flow from it.” Subordination of individual interest to general interest. According to Fayol, “the interest of one employee or group of employees should not prevail over that of the concern (organization)”. Remuneration. The remuneration for the services should be fair and reasonable. It must be fair and satisfy the employer as a reasonable cost for services rendered and also the employee as a means of livelihood and return for effort. Centralization, According to Fayol, centralization belongs to the natural order. In large organizations, a series of intermediaries were necessary. The share of initiative left to intermediaries depends on the character of the manager on the reliability of his subordinates and on the conditions of business. Whether decision-making is centralized (to management) or decentralized (to subordinates) is a question of proper proportion. The problem is to find the optimum degree centralization for each situation. Scalar chain. Fayol points out the dangers of excessive formalism. He says: “It is an error to depart needlessly from the line of authority, but it is an even greater one to keep it when detriment to the business ensues”. Thus, if the rules of formal organization are observed, communication between two subordinates in different departments may be lengthy and complex. ‘One can contact the other only by sending a message up a long ladder of command and waiting until it descends to its destination. Fayol uses the following figure (Figure 11.2) to illustrate this problem: Figure 11.2. Scalar chain and gangplank. If the principles of hierarchical organization are adhered to, communication between F and P may be disastrously lengthy, covering 9 layers as intermediaries as shown in Figure 11.2. But it is much better for ‘F’ and ‘P’ to make use of a ‘gangplank’ between them than to use ‘A’, and all the other intervening levels. This is possible without violating the line of authority if the immediate superiors, namely, ‘E’ and ‘O°, permit such a relationship and are kept informed of the decision reached. In case ofChapter 11_Henri Fayol: Principles of Administration e 137 disagreement between their superiors. Gangplanks should be used to prevent the scalar chain from showing down action. What Fayol meant by this is illustrated as in Figure 11.3. A Ler, Y = __ Authorizing agent __ , and ‘P’, they must then refer the matter over to Horizontal communication Dy —__ Dz Figure 11.3. The scalar chain, ‘A’ in the figure represents the top man in the organization who is directly over B, and Bp. By, in turn, is over C\, and By is the immediate superior of Cj, and so on, down the line. In a strict observance of ‘channels’, any communication from D, to D2 would go all the way up on the side of the triangle to A and down the other side. This is a time consuming process. Fayol suggested that a ‘gangplank’ (the Horizontal communication line) could be thrown across, without weakening the chain of command. It would only be necessary for the superiors of D, and D, to authorize them to deal directly with each other provided each informed his superior of any action taken. However, Fayol points out that there is less use of the ‘gangplank’ in government agencies mainly for two reasons. First, because of vague aim in a government agency, each section tends to regard itself as its own end and neglects its relationship with other sections; and second, the supreme authority itself (‘A’ at the top of the pyramid) does not encourage its own subordinates to use the ‘gangplank’ themselves.5 a ae Order, Fayol says that the right man should be at the right place. He holds that organizational order demands “precise knowledge of the human require- ments and resources of the concern and a constant balance between these requirements and resources”. Equity. In discussing the principle of ‘equity’, Fayol notes that workers aspire to “equity and equality of treatment”. Further, he holds that equity is the result of “th€ combination of ss and justice”. Stability of tenure. Fayol favours stability of tenure of personnel to ensure smooth running of an undertaking. He holds that “instability of tenure is at 5. Fayol, op. cit, pp. 34-36. }138 © Administrative Theories and Management Thought one and the same time cause and effect of bad running”. In discussing this principle, Fayol deals more with tenure as a technical prerequisite for learning a job‘than as an answer to inner emotional needs. Initiative, Initiative consists of “thinking out a plan and ensuring jts success”. Fayol identifies initiative as great source of strength for business. To encourage initiative, superior officers must show much tact, and the readiness to sacrifice personal vanity. Esprit de corps. Fayol also places emphasis ‘on harmony among the personnel of a concern. With a view to building a sense of harmony among the employees, the manager must himself show high personal integrity apart from setting a good example of moral character. A manager should not follow the motto of ‘divide and rule’. He maintains: “Dividing enemy forces to weaken them is clever, but dividing one’s own team is a grave sin against the business”. Fayol welcomes the trend for collective associations and for competing firms to develop friendly relations and settle common interests by joint agreement. Management must foster the morale of its employees. In this context, Fayol writes: Real talent is needed t6 coordinate effort, encourage keenness, use each person's abilities, and reward each one’s merit without arousing possible jealousies and disturbing harmonious relations. Fayol concludes his entire discussion on administrative principles by observing: “to me it seems at the moment especially useful to endow management theory with a dozen or so well established general principles. The foregoing principles are those to which I have most often resorted”. STAFF WORK Fayol attaches great importance to staff work. He regards the staff as an organ of the head securing the implementation of his orders. Staff members may be expected to serve as “an adjunct, reinforcement and sort of exten- sion of the manager’s personality”. Staff work involves help to administrator in four types of activities: 1, Correspondence and current matters 2. Liaison and control 3. Preparing plans 4, Developing improvements in every sphere of activity Fayol deplores that it has not become a custom “to regard the staff as an organ of thinking, studying and observation, whose chief function consists, under administrative impetus, in preparing for the future and seeking out all possible improvements. In order to carry out this role, staff members should be free of all responsibility for running the business”, 6. Ibid, pp. 36-42.Chapter 11 Henri Fayol: Principles of Administration ¢ 139 ORGANIZATIONAL AND NATIONAL PLANNING Planning for the organization and on a national scale holds an important place in Fayol's work, He maintains that detailed planning is necessary not only “in difficult moments” ‘but also tq avoid “hesitation, false steps, untimely changes of direction.” He refers to the planning practices in his company where the plan consisted of “a series of separate plans, called forecasts, monthly, weekly, daily forecasts, long-term forecasts; and there are yearly forecasts, ten yearly forecasts, special forecasts, and all merge into a single programme which operates as a guide for the whole concern”. Fayol-also calls for planning on a national scale and even in govern business. pal FAYOL AND TAYLOR: A COMPARISON Like Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol was an engineer who based his. conclusions not on scientific observations but on personal experience. Though they differed completely in their approaches, the works of Taylor and Fayol were complementary. Fayol looked at the administration from top down, emphasizing managerial ability, and Taylor from the bottom up, emphasizing the technical aspects of production. Taylor’s approach to management dealt with specifics of job analysis, employees’ motions, and time standards while Fayol viewed management as a teachable theory deal- ing with planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling.” In recognizing the contributions of Taylor and Fayol, Gross comments that both might be called the founders of modern administrative thought ® George complements this view: “Both were giants; both were pioneers. Modern management thought owes a tremendous debt to each”. A CRITICAL EVALUATION Criticism Fayol’s ideas were subjected to severe criticism. Peter Drucker, a critic of Fayol’s theory of functionalism, holds that some of the worst mistakes of organization-building have been committed by imposing a mechanistic model of an ‘ideal’ or ‘universal’ organization on a living business.? This model is found to be deficient in design and logic as it presents a single dimension of management determining all facets of organization around it.! George, op. cit, p: 111 7. 8. Gross, op. cit, p. 128. 9. Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (London: Heinemann, 1974), p. 559, 10. Ibid., pp. 551-352.