Administrative Theories

‘All polishing is done by friction. We get the music from the violin
by friction and we left the savage state when we discovered fire
through friction.’ After introducing the idea of ‘constructive con-
flict’, she had preferred integration among the three popular ways
of resolving a conflict, namely, domination, compromise, and inte-
gration. Another important contribution of Follett is the concept of
‘de-personalizing order’. According to her, issuing order is a peren-
nial problem in an organization. Administrators often refrain from
issuing order as they fear that it might invite negative repercussions.
Follett, instead, has introduced a concept of ‘de-personalizing order’,
which is mostly originating from the situation. And, as adminis-
trative orders are emanating from the actual situation, the problem
of personalizing order does not arise.
The classical theory of organization has been severely criticized
for over-emphasis on institutional structure and for ignoring the
human elements of organization. Herbert Simon has ridiculed the
classical organization theory as ‘homely proverbs, myths, slogans
and pompous identities’. There is no denying that the classicists are
too much preoccupied with the formal structural part of organiza-
tion and sometimes that too at the cost of human factors. Despite
the shortcomings, identified by the human relation theorists, be-
haviouralists, and the neo-classicists, the importance of classical
organization theory cannot be denied. In fact, it was the classical
organization theory, which had formed the bedrock for the mod-
ern organization theories.

THE SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT THEORY

The origin of scientific management theory is considered to be a
major breakthrough in industrial management. With the growing
expansion and consolidation of large-scale industries in the wake
of the Industrial Revolution, the Western world had witnessed a
resultant crisis of management. The problem was further aggra-
vated by events like the First World War. The growing scarcity of
resources, competition, and complexity in managing business had
demanded an efficient science of management. The scientific man-
agement theory was the outcome of such a need. It had drastically

53
 Public Administration in a Globalizing World

‘redefined’ the science of management by ensuring maximum ef-

ficiency with the consequent economization of time and resourc-
es. In other words, it had ‘revolutionized’ industrial relations by
proposing to revamp the age-old manager–worker relationship by
standardization of work procedure, improvement in the working
conditions, and so on, and also by making managers equally re-
sponsible for overall productivity. It suggested that the application
of scientific technology would maximize the overall productivity in
an industry, which in effect would increase the earnings of both the
workers and employers and minimize the friction between them.
Frederick W. Taylor has been considered as the father of sci-
entific management theory, though the term ‘scientific manage-
ment’ was coined much later by Louis Brandeis in 1910, reflecting
on the ideas of Taylor. Taylor believes that in every trade there is
one best way of doing a job, and the objective of the manager is to
explore that best way to expedite the situation optimally. Taylor’s
own words better convey the essence of scientific management
theory:

[A]mong the various methods and implements used in each ele-

ment of each trade there is always one method and one implement
which is quicker and better than any of the rest. And this one best
method and best implement can only be discovered or developed
through a scientific study and analysis of all the methods and im-
plements in use, together with accurate, minute, motion and time
study. (Taylor, quoted in Nigro and Nigro 1983)

The major works of Taylor include ‘A Piece-rate System’ (1895),

‘Shop Management’ (1903), ‘The Art of Cutting Metals’ (1906),
and ‘The Principles of Management’ (1911).13

Aims of Scientific Management

The major objectives of scientific management theory, as articu-
lated by the advocates of this school, may be summarized as:

• To gauge industrial tendencies and the market, in order to

regularize operations in a manner which will conserve the

54
 Administrative Theories

investment, sustain the enterprise as an employing agency,

and assure continuous operation and employment;
• to assure the employee, not only of continuous operation
and employment by correct gauging of the market, but also
assure by planned and balanced operations, a continuous
earning opportunity while on the payroll;
• to earn through a waste-saving management and processing
technique, a large income from a given expenditure of hu-
man and material energies, which shall be shared through
increased wages and profits by workers and management;
• to make possible a higher standard of living as a result of
increased income of workers;
• to assure a happier home and social life to workers through
removal (and by increase of income), of many of the dis-
agreeable and worrying factors in the total situation;
• to assure healthy as well as individually and socially agree-
able conditions of work;
• to assure the highest opportunity for individual capacity
through scientific methods of work analysis and of selection,
training, assignment, transfer, and promotion of workers;
• to assure by training and instructional foremanship the op-
portunity for workers to develop new and higher capacities,
and eligibility for promotion to higher position;
• to develop self-confidence and self-respect among workers
through opportunity afforded for understanding of one’s
own work specifically, and of plans and methods of work
generally;
• to develop self-expression and self-realization among work-
ers through the simulative influence of an atmosphere of re-
search and valuation, through understanding of plans and
methods, and through the freedom of horizontal as well as
vertical contacts afforded by functional organization;
• to build character through the proper conduct of work;
• to promote justice through the elimination of discrimina-
tion in wage rates and elsewhere; and
• to eliminate factors of the environment which are irritat-
ing and the cause of frictions, and to promote common

55
 Public Administration in a Globalizing World

understandings, tolerances and the spirit of teamwork

(H.C. Person, quoted in Sapru 1996).

Principles of Scientific Management

The distinguishing features of Taylor’s scientific management the-
ory can be enumerated as follows:

1. The development of a true science of work: Scientific manage-

ment theory seeks to discover a true science of work, which
in effect will benefit both the workers and managers alike.
The basic objective of this principle is to replace the ‘rule of
thumb’ by application of scientific methods. Taylor claimed
that there was ‘one best way’ to perform almost any task.
This can be done by observing and analysing the work as-
signed to a worker with respect to each element and the time
involved in it. This procedure will decide the ideal working
method or the best way of doing a job. Taylor considers this
‘organized knowledge’ as ‘science of work’.
2. The scientific selection, training, and progressive development of
the workman: This theory has put a lot of emphasis on scientif-
ic selection and proper grooming of the workforce. It believes
that vibrant workforce can bring about rapid increase in pro-
ductivity. Scientific selection involves selecting a right person
for a right job. For this, some standard selection procedure
must be there. Workers’ skill and experience must be matched
with the requirements of the respective jobs they are to per-
form. The workmen so selected must be given training for the
specific tasks assigned. This would help worker to accept
new methods, tools, and conditions willingly and enthusiasti-
cally. Taylor holds that it is the managements’ responsibility
to implement appropriate selection and training systems and
to see to it that the worker’s intellectual, psychological, and
physical traits match the requirements of these jobs.
3. The close coordination between the science of work and the
scientifically selected and trained men: The theory advocates
a close coordination between the science of work and the

56
 Administrative Theories

trained workforces for smooth functioning of an organiza-

tion. Taylor says that in order to get the best results, some-
one has to bring the science and workmen together. He felt
that it is the exclusive responsibility of the management to
do this job. He believes that workers are always willing to co-
operate with the management but there is more opposition
from the management side. He suggests ‘mental revolution’
for a change in this perception.
4. The division of work and responsibility between the manage-
ment and workers: This is another important hallmark of the
scientific management theory. It put the onus of industrial
productivity equally on the management and workers. That
is, industrial well-being is a joint responsibility, which needs
to be shouldered by both of them.

None of the above mentioned principles could be isolated and

called scientific management. Collectively, they contribute as sci-
entific management. In ‘The Principles of Scientific Management’
(1911), Taylor states that scientific management is ‘no single ele-
ment’, but a combination summarized as:

• Science, not rule of thumb

• Harmony, not discord
• Cooperation, not individualism
• Maximum output, in place of restricted output
• Development of each man to his greatest efficiency and pros-
perity (Taylor 1947: 140).

These characteristics constitute the philosophy of scientific man-

agement.
Taylor employs a number of techniques to facilitate the appli-
cation of the principles of scientific management. These include
functional foremanship, motion study, time study, piece-rate plan,
exceptional principle, standardization of tools, and so on. In or-
der for scientific management to succeed, Taylor urges a complete
‘mental revolution’ in the attitude of managers and workers as to
their duties, towards their fellow workers and towards all of their

57
 Public Administration in a Globalizing World

problems. Mental revolution or we can say a new outlook requires

the realization on part of both the parties (workers and manag-
ers) that their mutual interest is not contradictory and both can
prosper only through cooperation, not conflict. Taylor believes
that without this great mental change and new outlook on both
sides, scientific management cannot exist. Taylor suggests that in
any organization both workers and employers should cooperate
with each other and work towards increasing the productivity. In-
creased organizational output would give better wages to workers
and high profit to management and the atmosphere of conflict will
be replaced by peace and harmony.

Critique of Scientific Management

Scientific management led to a reform movement which offered
the hope of minimizing industrial problems. However, it was
equally opposed by many people. The anger of the labour commu-
nity was so harsh that, early in his career at Midvale Steel, Taylor
received death threats for trying to speed up work, and when he
later worked at Bethlehem Steel, the planning room was mysteri-
ously burned. The application of Taylor’s ‘mental revolution’ re-
solves all the disputes between the employers and the workers and
establishes effective cooperation between them and thus makes the
role of trade union unnecessary. Thus, labour leaders considered
Taylorism as not only destroying trade unions, but also destroy-
ing the principle of collective bargaining. They also had a fear that
it would increase in unemployment. Taylorism was also attacked
by the managers. Their workload increased due to the application
of ‘equal division of work and responsibility’. Those who wanted
promotion to high managerial positions also opposed Taylor’s
stand, which advocated training and assessment of managers by
highly trained experts. It was because of the differences with the
company managers that Taylor had to resign from Midvale Steel as
well as Bethlehem Steel companies. Human relation theorist criti-
cized Taylor’s principles for being impersonal and undermining
the human factor. Behaviourist also charged that Taylor’s methods
scarificed the initiative of the worker, his individual freedom, and

58
 Administrative Theories

the use of his intelligence and responsibility. Herbert Simon and

James G. March described the scientific management principles
as the ‘physiological organization theory’. Taylor’s theory is also
criticized for oversimplifying human motivation in terms of eco-
nomic rewards and neglecting the social and psychological aspects
of motivation. Likewise, the assumption that an individual existed
in isolation from his social environment is erroneous.

Contribution of Fredrick W. Taylor

Taylor is considered as the father of scientific management theory.
An engineer by profession, Taylor was obsessed with efficiency and
economy. Orderliness was the hallmark of Taylor’s thought. He had
reacted to the disorder he found in organizations in his time. In a
true commitment to the spirit of science, he believed that there is
always a best way of doing a job and the manager should strive for
achieving that best way through the application of the scientific
technique. Instead of the rule of thumb method, he was in favour
of greater autonomy for the workers, who would decide the work
methods among themselves and select their tools accordingly.
Apart from the scientific management, Taylor was also known
for his idea of participative management, which was implicit in
his advocacy for greater autonomy of workers. Thus, despite a
numbers of limitations, the ideas of scientific management greatly
influenced administrative thought and management practices
in subsequent years. Even after the initial period of resistance, it
conquered the citadels of old-fashioned industrial management
in the United States and had a tremendous effect on industrial
practice (Gross 1964: 127). It even influenced the administrative
and managerial practices of France, Germany, England, erstwhile
USSR, and other European countries.

BUREAUCRATIC THEORY
No organization has ever been existed without any form of bu-
reaucracy. In fact, every collective effort demands some form
of bureaucratic structure. Bureaucratic form of governance is

59