Public Administration Archives | UPSCALE IAS


Powered by UPSC MEME™

Category: Public Administration

Concept of Public Value By Mark Moore

Public value describes the value that an organization contributes to society. Nowadays, public value is no longer limited to the public sector, but is used by all types of organization, including non-governmental organizations and private sector firms.
Private Sector’s CSR activities.
NGOs and Civil Societies.

The term was originally coined by Harvard professor Mark H. Moore who saw it as the equivalent of shareholder value in public management. Public value is supposed to provide managers with a notion of how entrepreneurial activity can contribute to the common good.

Therefore, the public value researcher Timo Meynhardt from the University of St. Gallenand Lüneburg University uses the term to generally raise the question about organizations’ contribution to the common good. He believes that current management concepts, such as shareholder value, stakeholder value, customer value, sustainability or corporate social responsibility, should legitimize themselves in regard to their impact on the common good. In his (social-)psychological-based concept, public value emerges for individuals from the experiences made in social structures and relationships. Hence, it can be seen as a prerequisite and a resource for successful living.

This concept of Public Value suggest that the performance of a public manager should be assessed by COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS and not COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS as we used to do in Simonian theories.

Classical, Neoclassical and Contingency approaches to organizational design

Classical, Neoclassical and Contingency approaches to organizational design (Organisational Behavior and Design)

Classical Approach
In classical theory of organizational process, main emphasis is on structural factors and functions or activities to attain the objectives. Theorists stated that focus is given on specialisation and co-ordination, and chain of command facilitates co-ordination and communication. Classical theory to management is a set of consistent ideas on the management of organizations that developed in the late 19th century and early 20th century. This viewpoint appeared from the industrial rebellion and centres on theories of efficiency. As at the end of the 19th century, when factory production became persistent and there were large scale organizations, employers and other business groups explored ways to encourage employees and augment output. Main contributors who evolved classical approach to organizational processes are Frederick Taylor Henri Fayol. Most of them developed fundamental concepts for a comprehensive theory of management (Mullins, 2015). These theorists generated management theories such as Taylor’s Scientific Management, Fayol’s Administrative Management and Weber’s Bureaucratic management (George, 1948).

Frederick Taylor (1917) developed scientific management theory that is known as Taylorism at the beginning of this century.

His theory had four basic principles.

  • Division of labour
  • Scalar and functional processes such as unity of command, chain of command, delegation of authority, defining responsibility and accountability.
  • Structure-line and staff.
  • Span of control.

In the beginning, Taylor got success at improving production. His methods involved getting the best equipment and people, and then carefully scrutinizing each component of the production process. By analysing each task independently, Taylor explored the right combinations of factors that helped to increase in production. Though, Taylor’s scientific management theory was unbeaten in industrialized companies at end of the century, but could not perform well in modern companies. The beliefs of “production first, people second” has left an inheritance of declining production and quality, displeasure with work, loss of pride in workmanship, and a loss of organizational pride.
General approach of scientific management
Henri Fayol was also major contributor of Classical Theory. Henri Fayol has dissimilar viewpoint than Taylor and he focused on the manager rather than the worker and he emphasized in administrative features in the organization. Fayol established five administrative functions: (1) Planning; (2) organizing; (3) commanding; (4) coordinating; (5) controlling. These aspects indicate that Fayol concerned in commanding and controlling the organization towards high performance.

Furthermore, another contributor for classical approach is Max Webber, a German sociologist, who evolved the thought of bureaucracy. Max Weber (1947) developed on Taylor’s theories, and emphasized the need to decrease diversity and vagueness in organizations. There was more focus on establishing clear authority and control. Bureaucratic approach of Weber emphasized the need for a hierarchical structure of power. It documented the importance of division of labour and specialization. A formal set of rules was bound into the hierarchy structure to insure stability and uniformity. Weber also put forth the notion that organizational behaviour is a system of human interactions, where all behaviour could be understood by looking at cause and effect. Weber believed the bureaucratic notion was an approach to reduce the frustrations and illogicality of big organization where the relationship between management level and workers are based on class privilege (Owens, 1987).
Bureaucratic Approach
The Classical Approach of organization behaviour was best suited in the early 1900’s when the main issues in companies were related to the rising number of employee, increasing demand, full of mechanisation, and the tasks rationalisation in every jobs (Terry, 1975).

The classical theory has appropriate insight into the nature of the organisation. The theory focuses on the structure of formal organisation neglecting the interaction of individual personality, informal or social groups and intra-organisational conflicts. The classical theory (Theory X) views organisation as a structure which centres around work and not on persons. The classical approach supposed to be an authoritarian and autocratic managerial style.
There are numerous disadvantages of Classical Theory:

– This approach ignores human behaviour and human relation. There is an absence of rapid and free channels of communication, discounting innovation, initiative and change. It has been observed that classical theory of organization design is lacks in flexibility and adaptability. There is tight control through force and coercion. In this approach, there is an absence of intrinsic rewards.
Classical management theory was rigid and mechanistic. The limitations of classical organization theory rapidly became apparent. Its major insufficiency was that it tried to explain peoples’ enthusiasm to work strictly as a function of economic reward.
The Neo-classical Approach
The dogmas of neoclassical theory developed with human-oriented approach and main focus was on time needs, drives, behaviours and attitudes of individuals (Singh, 1983). The neoclassical approaches recognize early classical frameworks but expand and made significant qualification of them. The neoclassical theory integrates the behavioural sciences into management thought in order to solve the problems caused by classical theory practices. The principle of this enclosure was based on the idea that the role of management is to use employees to perform business functions in organizations. Instead of concentrating on production, structures, or technology, the neoclassical theory was mainly associated with the employee. Neoclassical theorists focused on replying questions related to the best way to motivate, structure, and support employees within the organization. It was believed that any manager who failed to account for the social needs of his or her employees could expect to deal with resistance and lower performance. Employees needed to find some inherent value in their jobs, which they certainly were not getting from the job that was highly standardized. In this approach, workers are structured in such a way that they would regularly share tasks, information, and knowledge with one another instead of placing employees into job roles, where they completed one particular task all day with little to no interaction with fellow workers. The principle was that once workers were placed into this alternate structure, their needs for socialization would be fulfilled, and thus they would be more creative. There are two major groups such as human relations school and behavioural schools emerged during 1920s and 1930s that developed the neoclassical theory. This approach reflects human relations movement as well as behavioural science approach. It thoroughly studies motives, supervision, group and intergroup behaviours. It is designated that effective co-ordination of activities is not possible without the collaboration of people. This theory transmits people-oriented organisational structure which will incorporate informal and formal organisations. Two concepts of Theory-Y approach are individual and work group i.e. inter personal relations and need for two way communication in the organisation demanded special attention in developing humanised organisational structure.

Contributions: Neo classical approach emphasised the role of informal organisations as agencies of social change (Informal Leadership). Neo classical theory developed motivational theory and theory of co-ordination and leadership.

The Neoclassical approach basically evolved with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s. Studies during this time, including the popular Hawthorne Studies, showed that social factors, such as employee relationships, were an important factor for managers to consider. It developed to overcome the limitations of the classical theory. A three-stage series of experiments assessed the effects of varying physical conditions and management practices on workplace efficiency. The first experiment scrutinized the effects of workplace lighting on productivity. It produced the unanticipated findings that changes in lighting had little effect but that changes in social conditions seemed to explain significant increases in group productivity. Other experiments were also performed and the researchers concluded that social factors in particular, workers’ desires to satisfy needs for companionship and support at work-explained the results observed across all of the Hawthorne studies.

Hawthorne Studies in Organizational Behavior

Classical and neoclassical approach of organization made exceptional contribution to the development of management thought. In classical approach, attention was more on jobs and machines. In neoclassical, emphasis was on increasing production through an understanding of people. Many proponents of this theory stated that if managers understand their people and adjust their organizations to them, then organization will succeed. However, the classical theory focuses on task and structure while the neoclassical theory emphasizes people aspect.
The contingency theory
Classical and neoclassical theorists analysed conflict as a factor that must be avoided because it hinder with stability. According to contingency theorists, conflict is inescapable, but manageable. The contingency theory of organizational structure currently offers a major structure for the study of organizational design (Donaldson, 1995a, 2001). It states that the most effective organizational structural design is where the structure fits the contingencies. It has provided logical concept for analysis of structure of organization. Main theoretical principles of contingency theory are that best practices depend on the contingencies of the situation. Theorists attempt to identify and measure the conditions under which things will likely occur. Since human service practice varies substantially, contingency theory provides a practical approach to model. The term contingency as used in contingency theory is alike to its use in direct practice. A contingency is an association between two phenomena. If one phenomenon exists, then a conclusion can be drawn about another phenomenon.

Theorists explained that this theory indicates, the most suitable organizational structure depends not only on the organizational objectives but also on the situation, which includes the environment, the technology employed, the rate and pace of change, the managerial style, the size of the organization, and other dynamic forces. This approach is derived from the leadership and organizational structures.

Numerous contingency approaches were devised concurrently in the late 1960s. This approach emerged due to many drawbacks of the classical theories such as Weber’s bureaucracy (Weber, 1946) and Taylor’s scientific management (Taylor, 1911) which were not fruitful as they ignored that management style and organizational structure were influenced by various aspects of the environment, the contingency factors. The contingency approach initiated by Joan Woodward (1958), who declared that winning organizations in different industries with different technologies were characterized by different organizational structures. Contingency theory tries to relate research on many management variables. It allows executives to analyse a situation and find out what variables influence the decision with which they are concerned. Chandler (1962) proposed that an organization would obviously develop to satisfy the needs of its strategy that form follows function. Chandler stated that organizations would act in a rational, chronological, and linear manner to adjust to changes in the environment. Efficiency was a function of management’s capability to adapt to environmental changes. Lawrence and Lorsch (1969) also explored how organizations adjusted to fit their environment. In highly unstable industries, they observed the importance of giving managers at all levels the authority to make decisions over their domain. Managers would be free to make decisions contingent on the current situation. The advantage of contingency approach is that it motivates managers to investigate individual and situational differences before deciding on a course of action. Major shortcoming of this approach is that it is often used as an excused for not gaining formal knowledge about management. The contingency perspective describes that the efficiency of various managerial practices, styles, techniques, and functions will differ according to the particular circumstances of the situation.
To summarize, Classical and neoclassical approaches has major contribution in the development of organizational processes. Rapid economic development and industrial expansion of different nations, classical and neoclassical theorists who developed different techniques of production allowed every nation to be involved in global market. The contingency view is totally different than doing the formal schools of management. The classical, behavioural, and management science schools assumed a universal approach. They projected the discovery of ‘one-best-way’ management principles that applies to every organization. However, experienced managers identify that not all people and situations should be handled identically. Therefore, the contingency approach developed theory that universal solutions and principles cannot be applied to organizations. The contingency theory proposes that what managers do in practice depends on, or is contingent upon, a given set of circumstances. Basically, contingency view stresses on situational appropriateness rather than universal principles.

Second ARC Recommendations on E-Governance (Pointers)

Second Administrative Reform Commission on E Governance

* Building a Congenial Environment

* Providing political support at the highest level

* Identification of e-Governance Projects and Prioritisation

  • Services with database and Services without database

* Respective Departments of Information Technology at the Union and State Government levels should coordinate between organizations and provide technical support

* Business Process Re-engineering

  • A step-by-step analysis of each process to ensure its rationality

* Capacity Building and Creating Awareness

  • The Administrative Training Institutes in various States should take up capacity building programmes in e-Governance

* Develop a national e-Governance ‘enterprise architecture’ framework

* Implementation

  • Activity Mapping of tasks
  • Re-design their websites and updating the websites at regular intervals
  • All the back-end processes should be computerized.

* Monitoring and Evaluation

  • By independent agencies at intervals

* The Second Schedule to the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 may be suitably amended.

* Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for some projects

* Protecting Critical Information Infrastructure Assets

* Mission Mode Projects.

  • The Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APR) of public servants entrusted with the responsibility of project implementation under NeGP should have a separate entry for evaluation of their performance in this regard.
  • Computerization of Land Records

Theory Z by William Ouchi

William Ouchi developed Theory Z after making a comparative study of Japanese and American management practices. Theory Z is an integrated model of motivation. Theory Z suggests that large complex organizations are human systems and their effectiveness depends on the quality of humanism used.  The distinguishing features of Theory Z are as follows:

1. Mutual Trust: According of Ouchi, trust, integrity and openness are essential ingredients of an effective organisation. When trust and openness exist between employees, work groups, union and management, conflict is reduced to the minimum and employees cooperate fully to achieve the organization’s objectives.

2. Strong Bond between Organisation and Employees: Several methods can be used to establish a strong bond between the enterprise and its employees. Employees may be granted lifetime employment which leads to loyalty towards the enterprise. During adverse business conditions, shareholders may forgo dividends to avoid retrenchment of workers. Promotions may be slowed down. As against vertical movement of employees, greater emphasis should be placed on horizontal movement which reduces stagnation. A career planning for employees should be done so that every employee is properly placed. This would result in a more stable and conducive work environment.

3. Employee Involvement: Theory Z suggests that involvement of employees in related matters improves their commitment and performance. Involvement implies meaningful participation of employees in the decision-making process, particularly in matters directly affecting them. Such participation generates a sense of responsibility and increases enthusiasm in the implementation of decisions, Top managers serve as facilitators rather than decision-makers.

4. Integrated Organisation: Under Theory Z, the focus is on sharing of information and ‘ resources rather than on chart, divisions or any formal structure. An integrated organization puts emphasis on job rotation which improves understanding about the interdependence of tasks. Such understanding leads to group spirit.

5. Coordination: The leader’s role should be to coordinate the efforts of human beings. In order to develop a common culture and class feeling in the organisation, the leader must use the processes of communication, debate and analysis.

6. Informal Control System: Organisational control system should be made informal. For this purpose, emphasis should be on mutual trust and cooperation rather than on superior-subordinate relationships.

7. Human Resource Development: Managers should develop new skills among employees. Under Theory’ Z, potential of every person is recognized and attempts are made to develop and utilize it through job enlargement, career planning, training, etc. Japanese companies operating in the United State have successfully used Theory Z. After collaboration between Japanese and Indian companies, some experts have suggested application of this theory in India, in Maruti Udyog, which has collaboration with Suzuki motors of Japan an attempt has been made to apply Theory Z. The workplace has been designed on the Japanese pattern, which involves open offices.

Limitations of Theory Z: 

(i) Provision of lifetime employment to employees to develop a strong bond between organisation and employees may fail to motivate employees with higher level needs.

(ii) Participation of employees in the decision-making process is very difficult. Managers may dislike participation as it may hurt their ego and freedom.

(iii) Theory Z suggests organisation without any structure. But without structure, there may be chaos in the organisation as nobody will know who is responsible to whom.

(iv) It may not be possible to develop a common culture in the organization because people differ in their attitudes, habits, languages, religions, customs, etc.

(v) Theory Z is based on Japanese management practices. These practices have been evolved from Japan’s unique culture. Therefore, the theory may not be applicable in different cultures.


Towards building a people’s police

Modern policing traces its origin to the philosophy of Robert Peel. He laid the foundation for future police forces way back in 1829, which continues to guide them even on . Peel believed that the police must derive its legitimacy from the people it serves.

It is only with their trust, consent and cooperation that a police force may assume any authority over them. These ‘Peelian principles’ are regarded as the cornerstones of contemporary policing.

The fundamental thought underlying these principles was that police must prevent crime and disorder for the safety of citizens, rather than repress people by military force and severity of punishment.

London and New York’s Metropolitan Police Forces were established on these Peelian principles. This strong and amicable relationship between the public and the police in London was reaffirmed in the recent terror attacks.

In India, however, the police force was founded on a different set of principles. The Indian Police Act of 1861, that governs the police till date, was set up in the wake of the mutiny of 1857—India’s first war of Independence—which threatened the exercise of British power over India.

The mandate given to the First Police Commission in 1860 was to secure the authority and economic interests of the Sovereign over the people and suppress all challenges to its power.

Quantifying the public’s opinion of the police can help gauge the current scenario in India. A household survey conducted by IDFC Institute, a Mumbai based think/do tank, attempted to assess people’s opinion of the police.

The survey titled “Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC)” asked 20,597 households across Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Bengaluru about their experience with the police, incidence of crime, perceptions of safety, in addition to their views about the police.

The questions posed to the respondents ranged from their opinion on respectful treatment by the police, its effectiveness in maintaining a safe environment in the city and its understanding of local issues, the sense of safety that comes with police presence in a secluded area, reliance on police in times of need, to whether they believed police is underpaid and overworked.

The results from the analysis show that about half the population in Bengaluru (47%) believe that the police will treat them with respect when they reach out to them. The number stands at 59% in Delhi, 71% in Mumbai and 77% in Chennai.

In Delhi, 59% of population feel that the police are doing a good job in maintaining a safe environment in the city. Mumbai, Chennai and Bengaluru fare better with 76%, 80% and 64%, respectively. Across the four cities, 75% to 91% of people believe that the police can be relied on when needed. Thus, the level of trust varies from city to city.

When these questions are looked at through the lens of a victim of crime versus a non-victim, there is an interesting observation. In Delhi, Bengaluru and Chennai, victims have an equal or even marginally better opinion of the police than a non-victim. However, in Mumbai, victims are vastly more mistrustful of the police than non-victims.

The survey also asked respondents whether they are more comfortable approaching a male or female officer to report an issue.

Almost half the population of the four cities, male as well as female, is indifferent about approaching a male or female police officer. Of the remaining population, among females, 20% prefer approaching male officers, while 29% prefer approaching female officers.

Among males, 43% prefer approaching male officers, whereas only 4% prefer approaching female officers. Such results can be useful inputs for concerted campaigns to build confidence in the public of the effectiveness of women officers.

The weakest response overall is to the question of ‘whether the police is underpaid and overworked’. For example, a mere 28% of people in Delhi agree with this view. These numbers cannot be seen independently. In addition to the people’s opinion of the police, we must simultaneously understand the circumstances in which the police must operate.

The lack of capacity and funds available to the police are a severe impediment. In a report released by Niti Aayog on strengthening the police force, we learnt that police officers and staff members at police stations, that the public often interact with, work more than 11 to 14 hour-shifts per day, often without weekly offs for months on end.

Besides the capacity constraints, it is important to gauge public opinion about police, as with any other public institution. Using such surveys as inputs towards bolstering confidence building measures, is an important step in building mutual trust.

Surveys and studies can help put numbers to the people’s opinions about the police machinery and can be used as a tool beyond the official crime data.

Earlier this year, the New York Police Department (NYPD) was set to roll out mobile phone surveys, using location technology, to gauge New Yorkers’ sentiments on safety. The survey also included questions on their views of the police.

Studies also find that communities that align their values with those of their police force are more likely to comply with the law. After all, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform.

Avanti Durani and Neha Sinha are, respectively, associate and assistant director at IDFC Institute, a Mumbai based think/do tank.

Maslow and Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation – Comparison

1. Meaning 

Maslow’s theory is based on the concept of human needs and their satisfaction.

Herzberg’s theory is based on the use of motivators which include achievement, recognition, and opportunity for growth.

2. Basis of Theory 

Maslow’s theory is based on the hierarchy of human needs. He identified five sets of human needs (on a priority basis) and their satisfaction in motivating employees.

Herzberg refers to hygiene factors and motivating factors in his theory. Hygiene factors are dissatisfiers while motivating factors motivate subordinates. A hierarchical arrangement of needs is not given.

3. Nature of Theory

Maslow’s theory is rather simple and descriptive. The theory is based long experience about human needs.

Herzberg’s theory is more prescriptive. It suggests the motivating factors which can be used effectively. This theory is based on actual information collected by Herzberg by interviewing 200 engineers and accountants.

4. Applicability of Theory

Maslow’s theory is most popular and widely cited theory of motivation and has wide applicability. It is mostly applicable to poor and developing countries where money is still a big motivating factor.

Herzberg’s theory is an extension of Maslow’s theory of motivation. Its applicability is narrow. It is applicable to rich and developed countries where money is a less important motivating factor.

5. Descriptive or Prescriptive

Maslow’s theory or model is descriptive in nature.

Herzberg’s theory or model is prescriptive in nature.

6. Motivators

According to Maslow’s model, any need can act as motivator provided it is not satisfied or relatively less satisfied.

In the dual factor model of Herzberg, hygiene factors (lower level needs) do not act as motivators. Only the higher order needs (achievement, recognition, challenging work) act as motivators.


Marx And Weber

1. Weber’s work seen as providing a corrective to Marx’s mono-causal determination of events.

2. Marx –Bureaucracy is an extension of the state.
Weber –Wider meaning of organization –public or private. Weber’s view was correct till the 1950s when both public and private sector organizations were bureaucratic. Since then, the private sector has started abandoning bureaucracy.

3. Marx -Bureaucracy was a specific creation of the capitalist society. Bureaucracy serves interests of ruling class.
Weber -Bureaucracy is a more general phenomenon –a manifestation of rationalization of the society. It is found in all industrial societies, capitalist or socialist.

4. Weber believed Parliament can effectively control bureaucracy.
Marxists as Lenin have rejected this view. They say parliaments are mere talking shops; while bureaucracy, away from parliament, really conducts work of government. The nature of administrative organization prophesied by Marxists for the socialist society is the antithesis of Weberian ideal type.

5. Weber rejects Marx’s view that bureaucracy is a parasitic entity.
Marx believed bureaucracy is inherently incompetent and non-rational while Weber believed, it is the most competent.



Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :