Exceptional Proff 510

Introduction

Topics to be covered include:

· Classical administrative theory

· Positivist and post-positivist thinking

· Science of administration

· Reform government

· Separation of politics and administration

· Bureaucracy

· POSDCORB

 

How do our public administrative organization's function? In this lesson, we will learn about the developmental theories and constructs in public administration from Weber and Wilson that help us to answer that question. In order to understand how our modern administrative state works, we have to understand the challenges of balancing politics and administration, how to create and manage a bureaucracy, how to determine the balance of rules and human needs, and what impact the construct of our administrative state has on public policy. The early theories of public administration give us an understanding of the normative questions concerning how our public service system should operate and whether it should reflect politics or be neutral. We will see how our thinking about this has transformed public service over time and what the consequences are of those choices.

Scientific Thinking about Public Administration

To understand how to examine this topic, we first need to understand how classical scholars thought about the topic and how the science of administration came about. To clearly understand those theories, we need to understand the basics of scientific thinking. Scientific thinking creates studies comprised of theories and hypotheses that test what we think we know about the world around us. We use a variety of tests to verify whether what we think we know is correct. Creating hypotheses on what we think might be going on and testing them using methods that can be replicated – gathering data, doing statistical analysis, and demonstrating the results – is required in an academic study. Can we test and know what is going on inside government and predict the outcomes based on those patterns? Studying the ongoing process of government administration has its own set of challenges because we are studying human behavior in real time.

The starting point for theories of public administration are the concepts of positivism  and post-positivism. The positivist, scientific method uses data to analyze and test theories to obtain a truth. Post-positivists (after the positivist era) assert that all data is subject to error and that testing is unlikely to produce any truth. However, we can use a variety of methods to deduce and assess the reality around us in order to come up with a logical order of knowing and predicting based on our assumptions, hypotheses, and foundational theories. You can read more about positivism and post-positivism at  Positivism and Post-positivism .

You can begin to see how having different ontological  assumptions about knowledge and what exists will produce different theoretical underpinnings of the question, “how does a public administrative organization function?” Beginning in the late 1800s, the United States began a large conversation that continues today on what is the best way to manage and operate the government. Early thinkers, scholars, and statesmen used logic and reason to craft their response. Later, more scientific and rigorous methods of assessment and evaluation were formed to test the theories of what methods are most likely to serve particular outcomes of the functions of government. These were refined through the positivist and post-positivist eras. The debates and theoretical testing we are focusing on in this lesson are whether the government should separate politics from the administration and what is the most effective and efficient way to structure the bureaucracy of government to achieve its purpose?

Progressivism

“This is why there should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness” President Woodrow Wilson (1887).

Wilson proposed that the function of administration should attempt to be neutral because the government would function better under that premise. Other scholars such as Luther Gullick (1937) and Frank Goodnow (1900), saw administrative neutrality as difficult to achieve unless additional mechanisms were built into the structure of government. This  dichotomy  of politics and administration is the dilemma that drives the classical thinkers of public administration.

Woodrow Wilson’s Role

The consideration of a science of administration gave rise to a new arena for an academic scholarship. Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. president from 1913 to 1921, is often credited with the origins of progressivism. But for our purposes, he is also known as the father of Public Administration! His 1887 treatise, “The Study of Administration,” challenged our understanding of politics as the vehicle for running the government. He saw a logical dilemma concerning the certainty of law and the necessity of regulation versus the need for administrative expertise (that he believed could be neutral). He asked the question, could the administrative arm of government be sufficiently neutral and kept at arm’s length from politics?

Professional Bureaucrats

This question of how to separate the administrative function in government (assuming it should be separated) gave rise to the need for and creation of the professional bureaucrat or public administrator. It also gave rise to the question of whether the government could or should be run “like a business?” Doing so would further the quest to implement policy and deliver services to the public by a neutral, non-political entity. Even the term bureaucrat has evolved mirroring this theoretical progression. The word bureaucrat stems from the French word for office or desk (bureau) and the Greek word for political power (κράτος or kratos) - thus, demonstrating that no separation exists between politics and administration. However, today, the bureaucrat is defined as a civil servant who is not elected and charged with the neutral operational functioning of government - demonstrating a definite separation of politics and administration.

Response to Industrialization and Corruption

The ideas of progressivism came about in response to the rapidly industrializing world at the beginning of the twentieth century. Progressives worked to pass laws and regulations that would bring fairness to the workplace. These regulations were particularly attentive to issues such as child labor, the length of the workday and workweek, and factory conditions. You can learn more about the progressive era here:  The Progressive Era: 1890 – 1920

People saw corruption in government and a lack of human dignity in the sweatshops of the industry. Social reform became a popular political idea as the doctrine of fairness and equity. Within this realm of progressivism, people wondered whether the government would be improved if its operations were neutral once laws and budgets were enacted by elected bodies. There were many interpretations of this line of thought, but it is most commonly referred to as rationalism.

Rationalism

Rationalism is rooted in what the famous administrative theorist, Max Weber, created in his theory of bureaucracy (Weber, 1922). He was most significantly influenced by the German scholar Ferdinand Tönnies, who created the theory of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft postulates that personal relationships are dictated by the notion of community and the greater good. Gesellschaft postulates that relationships are based on rational agreements and contracts (Cahnman, 2011). Weber believed that a rational operation of government based on the management of the individual was possible and warranted. The theory is that bureaucratic operations would consist of rational workers and systems that would make government administration work for all citizens and not just those who could corrupt the system for their own gain.

The business constituency in the United States clearly saw the advantage that a rational approach to government operations could have. After all, Wilson had said the government should be more businesslike. Doing so would shift the distribution of benefits from corrupt politicians to those who were better suited to steward the burgeoning realm of government administration. A wave of reform swept all levels of government and ushered in what we now accept as common reform procedures – such as secret voting ballots, the bulk of government employees being civil servants instead of political appointees, and rules of a government operation that define the operations of the bureaucracy. Business leaders supported these reforms to root out corruption. It is an important example of the scale of reform that was needed and why reformers and progressives were as successful as they were in making this kind of categorical changes in the structure of public administration.

Corrupt politicians were infamous in major cities such as Boss George Plunkitt in Tammany Hall in New York and the Tom Pendergast Machine in Kansas City. In an era prior to regulation, anything was game for these bosses - who were sometimes elected officials and sometimes political operatives. They supported the development of cities, but in the process of that, took enrichment and gains from their inside knowledge and sometimes from bribes and kickbacks from those who did business with the city.

TAMMANY HALL IN NEW YORKPENDERGAST MACHINE IN KANSAS CITY

Professionalizing Government Management

Senator Albert B. Fall was the first former U.S. cabinet official sentenced to prison for his part in the teapot dome scandal.

After Tammany Hall and other scandals, reform occurred at both the federal and local levels of government. At the local government level, reformers instituted the city manager form of local government – having an expert administrator as the de facto Chief Executive Officer of a city administration. This was designed to turn politicized decisions into rational decisions that could be justified with data and standard rules and practices. Other progressive reformers wanted to reign in the influence of big business on the federal government and pointed to corruption in the  Teapot Dome  oil contract scandal in the federal government under the Harding administration. Reformers felt that there was an insufficient oversight on the federal Secretary overseeing these contracts. Stronger regulations, as well as administrative rules and standard practices, would have kept the scandal from happening. Oil company executives had bribed government officials in order to gain favorable oil leases from the federal government. Thus, having a greater presence of and reliance on the civil service – government employees hired based on skill and expertise and not as political appointees – was expected to keep politics out of the functioning of the administrative realm.

Classical Theory – Experts in Government

How should a rational and expert government bureaucracy be crafted? Frederick Taylor (1911) founded the  scientific management  movement and studied the mechanisms of industrial labor. He studied how workers worked by gathering precise measurements of their movements in their workplace. These became known as time and motion studies where workers were literally timed with a stopwatch to measure how long it took them to do each motion involved in a task under prescribed conditions. Studies based on Taylor’s theories tested whether shifts in working conditions such as lighting, worker location on the assembly line, and employee grouping, could determine the optimal settings for the most efficient output. Upon examination of the results of these studies, researchers challenged whether the results were due to the workers being studied – that the psychological effect of being watched altered their behavior. This lends credence to the post-positivist understanding that when studying people, there is no indisputable truth that can be found. Read more here:  The Hawthorne Effect

Watch this video to see how Frederick Taylor, along with Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, pioneered time and motion study at  Frank and Lillian Gilbreth .

Despite concerns about the validity of the industrial worker studies, Taylorism, as it became known, was seen as a good model for developing the modern bureaucracy. It also fits well with the premise of “rational man” that Weber (1922) was creating. Weber relied on the precepts that administration could run most efficiently and effectively if there were individuals with expertise that fit their particular job, a standardization of procedure and rules of operation, a hierarchical structure of the bureaucracy with a unified command (department managers, directors, executives), and workers divided according to their function - water department, licenses department, etc. This type of rational order would create precision in operations without wasted motion - following the precepts of Taylor. By routinizing the bureaucracy, reform measures could take hold in government and the functioning of that bureaucracy would focus on production, rather than politics. The modern era of the administrative theory was in full blossom.

The Civil Service

The civil service is a major reform that was implemented in government administration. It has become the standard practice for hiring people to work in government. Specialized examinations are administered to job applicants in order to assess their skills and expertise. Results of the exam dictate whether someone is fit for the job and what position they are most suited for in order to effectively place them in a government position. Have you ever considered working for the government? Here are sample exams for the civil service:  Civil Service Prep – Sample Written Exams

Civil service was a major innovation in government and was a great departure from the accepted practice of political appointment and political beholding of those who worked in government. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (U.S. statutes ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403) was enacted into law in 1883 in order to reframe the hiring of federal workers. Once reform began to find supporters, it quickly grew in acceptance. State and City reform leagues formed across the country demanding change in the form of government itself – less reliance on mayors and more reliance on expert managers hired to run the government. The National League of Cities was created in 1924 to strengthen local government. By the 1930s, reform innovation had become the accepted and normative standard for government operations, moving the bureaucracy farther away from politics and closer to Weber’s design of bureaucracy. In 1939 the Hatch Act (U.S. statutes ch. 5, sections 7321-7326) was passed. This act limits the political activity of any civil servant during the performance of their administrative duties. This was another avenue to put into law the concept originated by Wilson that we should have a separation of politics from administration. Visit the Office of Special Counsel of the U.S. Government to find out more details on how the  Hatch Act  is implemented by the federal government.

Luther Gullick’s POSDCORB

Luther Gullick (1937) later refined the practice of administrative reform and bureaucratic management through a business-based practice that would be applied to government as well. He created the acronym POSDCORB to identify the significant elements of a well-functioning administrative unit. You can read more about POSDCORB at  POSDCORB .

P: planning

O: organizing

S: staffing

D: directing

C: coordinating

R: reporting

B: budgeting

This type of ideal organizing structure clearly answers the question we asked at the beginning of this lesson – how does a public administrative organization function? However, it does not take into account the impacts of adopting this rational and hierarchical system of administration. We need only take up the common understanding of “red tape” to realize there is a consequence of building large bureaucratic structures.

When citizens interface with their government there is an expectation that government administration will be responsive to their needs and interests. However, the premise of the rational and functional bureaucracy built on rules of operation is not created to be responsive. It is created to be functional. This friction in expectations results in great frustration when “rules” cannot be bent or broken for individual circumstances. Over time, public administration scholars have discovered and theorized that the actual administration of government does not remain rigid, despite the expectations of Weber. Instead, it bends. Michael Lipsky (1980) created the concept of street-level bureaucracy to explain the face-to-face interaction between bureaucrat and citizen and how rules and processes could be adjusted in the moment as dictated by circumstances. Think in terms of a police officer letting you off with a warning rather than a ticket. Clearly, there was a need to take the rational bureaucrat and humanize him.

Classical Theory – Humanism

Today we commonly refer to the onboarding   and management office in an organization as Human Relations. The origins of this are in humanism as developed by Douglas McGregor (1960) in his seminal work The Human Side of Enterprise. Humanizing the bureaucracy and management is part of the rise of the attention to values and service in administration. Taylorism and the followers of scientific management treated workers as “widgets.” They considered workers with similar traits to be interchangeable for the good of the organization. (The term widget in this context refers to a mythical product that is used to explain factory production. This should not be confused with the current technology use of the word widget which refers to a graphical user interface for a computer application.) McGregor clearly understood that people are not widgets and that the human element must be included in our administrative systems.

Theory X and Theory Y

This mnemonic device may help you remember the two theories. The figure for Theory X on the left shows a person refusing to work. The figure for Theory Y on the right shows a person cheering the opportunity to work.

McGregor developed Theory X and Theory Y to explain management styles and the type of productivity result that a manager would get depending on which style of management they practiced. Theory X is considered an authoritarian style – rule-bound and rational. It is expected that workers will not perform well over time under this style of management. Theory Y is a style of management where workers have a participatory role in operations and production. This is expected to produce better results because workers are more comfortable being managed under this style. The bureaucracy is established to manage worker behavior with rules and a hierarchy. McGregor clearly indicates that under a Theory X approach, over time, worker productivity will decline because people chafe under authority. He found that people would monitor themselves and maintain their productivity when they are allowed to participate in their own management, as evidenced by managers that exemplify Theory Y. For public administration, the theory that a more humanistic management styles would produce better results is contradictory to the classical theories of bureaucracy. To learn more about Theory X and Y, see the description here:  McGregor Theories  and the accompanying diagram here:  McGregor Diagram

The Governance Approach

Humanizing the administrative organization is similar to another precept created by Luther Gullick called the governance approach (Meir, 2010). This recognized that ethics and outcomes are invariably linked. In order to accommodate this, he advocated the use of values education for managers and to link scholarship of public administration to the actual practices that government administrators exhibited. At the root of governance, however, was Gullick’s belief that it was necessary to recognize that administration could not function without a strong understanding of all the parties that played a role in public policy. He did not believe that administrators could ignore the politics around them. He recommended that to recognize those political entities and interests (both inside and outside government) would improve the performance of the bureaucracy and administration of programs.

New Public Management

From this classical reflection on public administration came a modern realm of public administration that focuses on New Public Management (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992) and New Public Service (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000, 2015). New Public Management is oriented to public-private partnerships and bringing business practices into government. Its authors’ most famously directed that citizens are customers and should be treated as such by the bureaucracy. This could be achieved by privatizing government services, by decentralizing the management of government programs and letting the situation dictate the response of the bureaucrat. Of course, this is very different from Weber’s rigid, orderly, rule-bound prescription for the bureaucratic organization. Osborne and Gaebler (1992) note that the world is becoming smaller and citizens are much more oriented to the global phenomenon than they were 100 years ago. Bureaucrats must learn to be entrepreneurial and “steer rather than row” in our new post-industrial, information era of “catalytic government.” This means that bureaucrats now guide, rather than produce, which is certainly a major shift in how the bureaucracy functions. Reinventing Government is an important work that proposes an alternative way to organize and manage the government. Please see this review and synopsis of the book:  Reinventing Government . The Denhardts take that a step further and explain that service is the focus of any government and that service to citizens advances the common good.

Conclusion

The classical theories of public administration are an important indicator of how the government has evolved over time. To know where we are now as managers and public staff, we have to know where we started and what decisions were made to create modern administration. While debate and statecraft dictated the earliest eras of our decisions about administrative organization, scientific theory dominated the industrial revolution period when the government in the United States grew with velocity. The use of theories, hypotheses, data, and testing of propositions created a scientific and verifiable realm for making decisions about how to approach public service. Studies of worker time and motion and the identification of best environments made workers into widgets. Weber’s rigid structure of bureaucracy put public servants into the category of widget and government as a business-like environment. The dichotomy of politics and administration and the rejection of government corruption left a wide space for this bold realm of regulating public workers. The civil service process brought expertise into the equation to make sure the best applicants were slotted into the most appropriate job. The post-positivist era challenged the way we tested our theories about human behavior and aligned with the humanist theory of government operations. Recognizing the reality of what people actually experience as public servants allowed theorists to reconceptualize how the bureaucracy could work. The advent of New Public Management and New Public Service have redefined even what public sector means – relying on entrepreneurial and guided processes that can be privatized as well as serve the public citizens to whom government is accountable.