Chapter 10: Conclusion and Recommendations
2.2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.2.3 Historical Perspective
2.2.3.1 The Classical Approach
The classical approach was characterized by the politics/administration dichotomy (Henry, 1993: 22 and Van der Waldt & Helmbold, 1995: 33). According to Roux et al (1997: 19), this approach can be divided into three perspectives: the scientific management approach, the administrative theories and the bureaucratic approach.
Several people such as Frederick Taylor, Luther Gulick and Max Weber are associated with this approach. Roux et al (1997: 19) maintain that this approach is
mainly characterized by the fact that emphasis was on formal aspects of the organization as well as the closed organizational systems, as shown below:
(a) The Scientific Management Approach
This approach was pioneered by the American engineer, Frederic Taylor. Taylor identified that organizations were characterized by inefficiencies, and where highly disorganized (Fry, 1989: 53). According to Taylor, greater productivity could be attained if working methods were improved and responsibilities divided between management and workers leading to organizational efficiency (Fry, 1989: 53 and Roux et al, 1997: 19). Taylor focused on the performance of routine and repetitive tasks with the intention of determining the best ways of performing the tasks.
According to Fry (1983: 3), although this approach was used in the private sector, it was also accepted in the public sector.
In order to increase organisational efficiency and productivity, Taylor proposed the following (Fry, 1989: 53-57 and Roux et al, 1997: 19-20):
A thorough and scientific analysis of each task that would enable managers to develop job descriptions and thereby increasing productivity.
Organisations should develop a scientific way of selecting suitable personnel.
This method should also include performance development.
Employees were to be paid according to output and not hours worked.
Specialisation of functions, which emphasized the difference between manager and low level employees. Managers should be responsible for developing best ways of performing tasks.
Critics of Taylor‟s model maintain that the model views man as an extension of a machine, and does not consider the influence of environmental variables on the behaviour of workers (Roux et al, 1997: 20). As Fry (1989: 68) puts it, Taylor‟s model extended the engineering perspective from machines to men. Despite this shortfall, the model however called for more cooperation in the workplace, wherein
mutual distrust would be replaced by a “joint pursuit of shared objectives” (Fry, 1989:
68).
(b) Administrative (Departmentalist) Theories
The administrative theories were advocated by various people such as Henri Fayol, James Mooney, Alan Reilly, Luther Gulick and Lyndal Urwick. These theories emphasized formal organizational structures, management functions and principles of organizing as a prerequisite for attaining efficiency (Fry, 1989: 3 and Roux et al:
1997: 22).
According to Roux et al (1997: 21), it is Henri Fayol‟s view which led to studies in management theories through the various elements of management, such as planning, organization, supervision, coordination and control (Roux et al, 1997: 21).In addition to the elements, Fayol further identified fourteen (14) principles of management. The emphasis was more on a centralized organizational structure, characterized by functional specialization as well as maintenance of authority and discipline.
Gulick in contrast emphasized the importance of identifying, grouping and coordinating tasks necessary for the accomplishment of organizational goals in order to increase organizational efficiency (Fry, 1989: 3). According to Coetzee (1988: 36), Willoughby (who published the book Principles of Public Administration) separated the functions of government into decision-making (politics, legislative) and execution (administration, executive). It was, however, authors like Gulick and Urwick who formulated the functions performed by those in administration, namely, planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting (Coetzee, 1988:
37 and Henry, 1995: 24). According to Henry (1993: 24), this period resulted in the development of the principles of administration. This school of thought maintained that principles of administration could be administered anywhere without regard to the environment, culture or institutional framework.
This approach resulted in the development of concepts such as span of control and chain of command as used currently in both private and public sectors. Dealing with the relationship between the various branches of government, Gulick stressed the role
should be to plan, propose and implement public policies and programmes (Fry, 1989:
74). According to Gulick, government should manifest a “decent human sympathy for the weak” and also take into account the view of other stakeholders when performing its functions (in Fry, 1989: 78)
(c) The Bureaucratic Model
Another prominent person in the classical period is Max Weber. According to Weber, the separation of politics and administration was critical to increase organizational efficiency, wherein an administrator must be a neutral person who implements the mandate of politicians. According to the Weberian model, the bureaucracy (administration) is responsible for the implementation and execution of policy decisions and not policy formulation (Fry, 1989: 4 and Mentz, Kellerman & Kotze in Kotze, 1997: 18). Weber further placed emphasis on formal organizational structure and hierarchies as a prerequisite for efficiency and effectiveness (Roux et al, 1997:
22). As Mentz, Kellerman & Kotze (in Kotze, 1997: 18) maintain, Weber‟s model was designed for control administration (to maintain law and order) with very limited service function. Weber considered this to be critical considering the large public sector institutions. To this effect, he formulated the following characteristics of an ideal sophisticated and efficient institution (Botes in Hanekom, Rowland & Bain, 1987: 72-80 and Roux et al, 1997: 22):
A well planned hierarchy with clearly defined areas of authority and responsibility.
A clear division of work to make specialization possible.
A system of rules and regulations and procedures.
Strict and systematic discipline and control for workers.
Strict selection and evaluation of personnel who wish to join the institution.
Without any doubt, the classical approach set the foundation for public administration as evidenced today. However, some of the critics of the approach maintain the following (Coetzee, 1988: 38 and Roux et al, 1997: 24-25):
The assumption that politics and administration could be separated (dichotomized) was questionable. It is maintained that this assumption contain conflicting principles that were not tested under scientific conditions.
Focusing on organizational structure degrades an individual to a level of dependency.
The approach ignores other factors that determine individual conduct.
The influence of environmental variables on the task of organizational units is ignored.
Too much emphasis is placed on discipline and control.
The development of universal principles of public administration would not succeed due to differences in personalities as well as cultural differences. It was argued that instead of focusing on the principles of administration, focus should instead be on the functions of leading officials.