Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

although quite different in some respects, became as much of a continuing tradition in public administration as did scientific management. Although the human relations idea has many theorists, the real founder was Elton Mayo. In a series of experiments during the 1930s, Mayo found that the social context of the work group was the most important factor in management. Conflict was pathological and to be avoided, and there was no necessary antagonism between management and workers. In what became known as the ‘Hawthorne experiments’, referring to the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric, Mayo found that productivity increased most by taking an interest in the workers, and other factors, including financial incentives, were much less important. Mayo and his followers had substantial impact on the management of the public sector, even if more recent work has cast doubt on the value of interpretations of the original data, showing most particularly that financial incentives were important after all (Schachter, 1989, pp. 16–17; Gillespie, 1991). Consideration of the psychological context of the organization was responsible for a major school of thought in theories of organizational behaviour. The idea that individuals responded to other than financial motives led to an improvement in working conditions. Mayo influenced those who thought management should be kinder to their workers and provide some kind of social interaction, including in government. Human relations theory has been important in the public context and its influence continues in the debate over managerialism. As Pollitt argues (1993, p. 17): The significance of this work for managerialist ideologies today is that it established the idea that informal relations within and without the organisation are of considerable importance. It is not only the formal organisation chart, distribution of functions and systems of work measurement which are important, but also the feelings, values, informal group norms and family and social backgrounds of workers which help determine organisational performance … . Subsequently this general message has been developed in many and various detailed applications – modern techniques of job enrichment, participative management styles and self-actualisation are part of the intellectual heritage of the human relations school. It could be argued that human relations theory was applied to a greater extent in the public sector. Public organizations had fewer competitive constraints than the private sector and, arguably, went further in introducing human relations, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the less-informed, though widely-held, outside criticisms of the public bureaucracy has been that workers are treated too well and had to do so little compared to the private sector. A continuing debate The Traditional Model of Public Administration 29 The debate between scientific management and human relations is a continuing one. It may be tempting to regard the theories of Taylor and Mayo as mutually exclusive – at one time one theory is pre-eminent while at other times the
30 Public Management and Administration other is – but this would be misleading. As Bozeman points out, it would ‘be a mistake to see classical theory and human relations as antithetical’ (1979, p. 96). The Hawthorne studies ‘left the old goals of hierarchy, cost efficiency, and managerial supremacy intact, changing only the means of achieving the goals’ (1979, p. 100). Like Taylor, Mayo did not favour unions or industrial democracy (Fry, 1989, p. 131). Like Mayo, Taylor suggested the importance of cooperation in the workplace (Fry, 1989, p. 68). The goal of both – increased productivity – was the same. Both continue to influence management in the public sector. Some of the more recent arguments about management in the public sector are continuations of a longer debate over scientific management and its alleged counterpart (Pollitt, 1993). According to Schachter (1989, p. 1): Taylor’s ghost hovers over the modern study of public administration. Although he has been dead for over seventy years, discussion of his work quickly degenerates into polemics. Much of the modern literature depicts him as authoritarian, equating motivation with pay incentives. This denigration, however, focuses on a narrow range of quotations or confuses his own ideas with their purported application by people he specifically repudiated. Schachter traces the influence of Taylor in public administration texts over the century and argues that the dichotomy between scientific management on the one hand and human relations on the other is a false one. A thorough reading of Taylor shows anticipation of many points the human relations theorists claimed as their own. Some reinterpretation is needed, although the tradition of two opposing theories is likely to continue, instead of one being generally regarded as supplanting the other. It was stated earlier that for most of the century Taylorism was a major influence on the public sector as it was on the private sector. Taylor undoubtedly influenced job design. His model was rigid, bureaucratic and hierarchical and obviously suited the public sector in the heyday of the traditional model of administration. Much could be gained by treating workers humanely, but Taylor favoured that as well, and at least was prepared to pay workers who achieved more. Similarly, both the public and private sectors used the human relations school to some extent; if it helped productivity to see the workers as social beings, there was something to be gained by counselling, improving working conditions, funding the social club, or anything that could increase the attachment of the worker to the organization. The Golden Age of public administration Early practitioners were confident, assured of their theories and, above all, believed that the improvement of government and its administration offered the promise of a better life for all. Public administration in its Golden Age, from around 1920 to the early 1970s, was a worthy and satisfying enterprise, with
Page 1 and 2: Public Management and Administratio
Page 3 and 4: Also by Owen E. Hughes AUSTRALIAN P
Page 5 and 6: © Owen E. Hughes 1994, 1998, 2003
Page 7 and 8: Preface Over the past 20 years the
Page 9 and 10: viii Preface the Colorado link such
Page 11 and 12: 2 Public Management and Administrat
Page 19 and 20: 10 Public Management and Administra
Page 37: 28 Public Management and Administra
Page 53 and 54: 3 Public Management Introduction Th
Page 89 and 90:
80 Public Management and Administra
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
5 Public Enterprise Introduction Pu
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
100 Public Management and Administr
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
7 Strategic Management Introduction
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
10 E-government Introduction In the
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
11 Managing External Constituencies
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
12 Public Management in Developing
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
13 Accountability Introduction The
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
14 Conclusion: A New Paradigm for P
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
284 References Borins, Sandford (19
Page 295 and 296:
286 References Glor, Eleanor D. (20
Page 297 and 298:
288 References Jordan, Grant (1997)
Page 299 and 300:
290 References Monroe, Kristen Renw
Page 301 and 302:
292 References Putt, Allen C. and S
Page 303 and 304:
294 References Wilson, Graham K. (1
Page 305 and 306:
296 Index bureaucracy 1-5, 9, 15-43
Page 307 and 308:
298 Index information and communica
Page 309 and 310:
300 Index ‘one best way’ thinki
Page 311 and 312:
302 Index Ritter, G. 85, 86 role of
show all

Public Management and Administration - Owen E.hughes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?