2.5 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.5.1 Theoretical evolution of the management theory
Bedeian and Wren (2009:213) state that although Henri Fayol’s training was in engineering, he realised that managing a geographically dispersed organisation with ten thousand employees required skills other than those he had studied. Fayol viewed management as more than devising systems and methods for increasing output. For Fayol, management involved all the activities associated with producing, distributing and selling a product. A manager needed to be able to formulate plans, organise plant and equipment, deal with people and much more. Such skills had never been taught by engineering schools. Fayol believed that a lack of a management theory made it more difficult to teach and practice management because managers’ experiences were highly circumscribed and not easily understood by other managers or students of management. Fayol defined theory as
“a collection of principles, rules, methods and procedures tried and checked by general experience (Bedeian & Wren, 2009: 213-215).
Fayol felt that management required special study apart from technical matters and could be taught in schools and universities as theory was developed and codified.
Managerial ability, according to Fayol, depended on certain qualities and knowledge:
Physical qualities: health, vigour, address (literally, manner of behaving);
Mental qualities: ability to understand and learn, judgement, mental vigour and adaptability;
Moral qualities: energy, firmness, willingness to accept responsibility, initiative, loyalty, tact and dignity;
General education: general acquaintance which matters not belonging exclusively to the function performed;
Special knowledge: that peculiar to the function, be it technical, commercial, financial, managerial, and so on;
Experience: knowledge arising from the work and the recollection of lessons a person has derived from things (Bedeian & Wren, 2009:215-216).
Fayol contended that all employees, from foremen to work superintendents, should receive some managerial training. He believed schools and universities did not teach management because it was thought that experience was the only way to acquire managerial ability. Fayol used his experiences and observations to propose a body of knowledge that included principles as guides to thinking and practice and elements of management as a description of the functions managers performed. His goal was to start a general discussion from which a theory of management might emanate (Bedeian & Wren, 2009:216)
According to Fox, Schwella and Wissink (1991:8) when the evolution of theoretical approaches to the study of management is considered, two tendencies are clear. The first tendency is that there is a move away from a closed-systems perspective to an open-systems perspective. The closed perspectives of earlier origin investigated management phenomena in terms of their internal variables and very little attention was given to the effect of external variables shaping and influencing these phenomena. The second tendency that is evident is that earlier theoretical approaches tend to be involved in a search for a set of management principles which can be applied universally to management irrespective of context or circumstances (Fox et al., 1991:8).
The literature on the development of management and organisation theory identifies four schools of thought that were used consecutively as models for the study of management and organisational phenomena.
2.5.1.1 The classical school
This school is rooted in the scientific management approach as well as in bureaucratic theory. This approach was based on a belief that rationality in structure
and process could be attained by building a theory around what was defined as ’one best way’ of doing things. This school maintained that it was possible to devise a set of principles and these principles could be applied in any type of organisation. In the classical school the concern was how to build an organisation based on proper principles of functioning and the processing of information needed to carry out functions in the most efficient way. The tenets of this school are still useful and evident in modern management theory and practice (Fox et al., 1991:9).
Fox et al. (1991:10) levels three major points of criticism against the approach of this school; namely:
The school utilises a mechanistic and machine-like analogy for the studying of management and organisational phenomena. There is a narrow view of task performance and the human element is not effectively considered in the process,
The school emphasises a search for universally applicable principles of management. The notion of universally applicable principles is not sustainable in the theory and practice of management,
It largely focuses on internal efficiency and does not give significant attention to management environment and factors in this environment. It can be said that this school uses closed-system logic instead of open- system logic (Fox et al., 1991:10).
2.5.1.2 The behavioural school
This school is composed of investigators from psychology, social psychology and sociology. The school aimed at enabling management to understand human behaviour in order to be capable of transforming it for the improved effectiveness of the organisation. The behavioural school emphasised the importance of studying people as behaving individuals in an organised setting (Fox et al., 1991:10).
Fox et al. (1991:10) state that the behavioural school emphasises the argument that management cannot manipulate behaviour by using money as a sole motivator and by using the principles of scientific management. This approach does not sufficiently
consider the impact of the environment on management. As such, this school still uses closed-system logic in a similar way as the classical school.
2.5.1.3 The open-systems school
This school studies management and organisational phenomena as complex systems consisting of sets of interrelated variables and parts collaborating to reach objectives by using inputs from the environment. This approach emphasises the importance of the environment as a variable in the management of complex organisations. The notions of universal ‘principles of management’ and the ‘one best way’ that are applicable in all management situations, are rejected by this approach.
The open-systems approach furnishes a framework for a macro perspective for the analysis and study of organisations. This enables theorists to consider the effect of environmental dynamics on the management of the organisation. The approach helps to provide the orientation needed to keep the organisation and its management in a state of dynamic equilibrium with its environment (Fox et al., 1991:10-11).This orientation can be regarded as essential for modern management and the contemporary organisation.
2.5.1.4 The contingency school
According to Fox et al. (1991:11) the basis of this school is found in the open- systems approach. The essence of the approach is the argument that an organisation’s relationship to other organisations as well as to its total environment depends on the situation it finds itself in. The tenets of the contingency school imply that managers should be adaptable, flexible, analytical and ingenious in their decision-making and management. It can be concluded that the trend in the evolution of management theory has been a shift from a closed-system approach searching for principles of management to an open-system approach selecting management strategies in relation to the particular situation within which the organisation finds itself (Fox et al.,1991:11). According to Robbins (1980:209-217) a substantial body of empirical evidence in support of the contingency approach has been built up by researchers such as Burns and Stalker, Lawrence and Lorsch, Woodward and Aston and Perow.