The Proverbs of Administration

A fact about proverbs that greatly enhances their quotability is that they almost always occur in mutually contradictory pairs. "Look before you leap!" but "He who hesitates is lost." This is both a great convenience and a serious defect depending on the use to which one wishes to put the proverbs in question. If it is a matter of rationalizing be- havior that has already taken place or justi- fying action that has already been decided upon, proverbs are ideal. Since one is never at a loss to find one that will prove his point or the precisely contradictory point, for that matter they are a great help in per­ suasion, political debate, and all forms of rhetoric.

But when one seeks to use proverbs as the basis of a scientific theory, the situation is less happy.

It is not that the propositions ex­ pressed by the proverbs are insufficient; it is rather that they prove too much. A scientific theory should tell what is true but also what is false.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified writer

Proficient in: Philosophical Theories

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

If Newton had announced to the world that particles of matter exert either an attraction or a repulsion on each other, he would not have added much to scientific knowledge. His contribution consisted in showing that an attraction was exercised and in announcing the precise law govern­ ing its operation. Most of the propositions that make up the body of administrative theory today share, unfortunately, this defect of proverbs. For al­ most every principle one can find an equally plausible and acceptable contradictory prin­ ciple.

It is the purpose of this paper to substantiate this sweeping criticism of administra­ tive theory, and to present some suggestions perhaps less concrete than they should be as to how the existing dilemma can be solved .SOME ACCEPTED ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES

Among the more common "principles" that occur in the literature of administration are these:

• 1. Administrative efficiency is increased by a specialization of the task among the group.
• 2. Administrative efficiency is increased by arranging the members of the group in a determinate hierarchy of authority.
• 3. Administrative efficiency is increased by limiting the span of control at any point in the hierarchy to a small number.
• 4. Administrative efficiency is increased by grouping the workers, for purposes of con­ trol, according to (a) purpose, (b) process, (c) clientele, or (d) place. (This is really an elaboration of the first principle but de­ serves separate discussion.)

Since these principles appear relatively simple and clear, it would seem that their application to concrete problems of admin­ istrative organization would be unambigu­ ous and that their validity would be easily submitted to empirical test. Such, however, seems not to be the case.

Some of these advantages can be regained by organizing on the basis of process within the major departments. Thus there may be an engineering bureau within the public works department, or the board of educa­ tion may have a school health service as a major division of its work. Similarly, within small units there may be division by area or by clientele: e.g., a fire department will have separate companies located through­ out the city, while a welfare department may have intake and case work agencies in various locations. Again, however, these major types of specialization cannot be si­ multaneously achieved, for at any point in the organization it must be decided whether specialization at the next level will be ac­ complished by distinction of major purpose, major process, clientele, or area. The conflict may be illustrated by show­ ing how the principle of specialization ac­ cording to purpose would lead to a differ­ ent result from specialization according to clientele in the organization of a health department.

The faults in this analysis are obvious. First, there is no attempt to determine how a service is to be recognized. Second, there is a bald assumption, absolutely without proof, that a child health unit, for example, in a department of child welfare could not offer services of "as high a standard" as the same unit if it were located in a depart­ ment of health. Just how the shifting of the unit from one department to another would improve or damage the quality of its work is not explained. Third, no basis is set forth for adjudicating the competing claims of purpose and process the two are merged in the ambiguous term "service."

It is not necessary here to decide whether the committee was right or wrong in its recommendation; the important point is that the recommendation represented a choice, without any apparent logical or empirical grounds, between contradictory principles of administration. . . . These contradictions and competitions have received increasing attention from students of administration during the past few years. For example, Gulick, Wallace, and Benson have stated certain advantages and disadvantages of the several modes of specialization, and have considered the conditions under which one or the other mode might best be adopted.9 All this analysis has been at a theoretical level in the sense that data have not been employed to demonstrate the superior effectiveness claimed for the different m There should certainly be no illusions, in undertaking it, as to the length and devious- ness of the path.

It is hard to see, however, what alternative remains open. Certainly neither the practitioner of administration nor the theoretician can be satisfied with the poor analytic tools that the proverbs provide him. Nor is there any reason to be- lieve that a less drastic reconversion than that outlined here will rebuild those tools to usefulness. It may be objected that administration cannot aspire to be a "science"; that by the nature of its subject it cannot be more than an "art." Whether true or false, this objec­ tion is irrelevant to the present discus­ sion. The question of how "exact" the prin­ ciples of administration can be made is one that only experience can answer. But as to whether they should be logical or illogical there can be no debate. Even an "art" can­ not be founded on proverbs.