Category: Public Administration

The main thesis of this article, highlights the growing attention ‘administrative evil’, as a research problem, is today receiving in ‘public administration research’, especially since Adams and Balfour’s (1998) pioneering study Unmasking Administrative Evil.

While the problem under consideration looks at the extent to which ‘administrative evil’ is caused by technical rationality’, here the main focus, is its relevance within the broader study of Organisational Theory, particularly the philosophical work of the political scientist Eric Voegelin.

Voegelin’s main arguments are here presented alongside other ethical models; the author suggests encompass Voegelin’s ethical concerns.

Throughout, the author writes clearly and lucidly on the subject, including a brief biography of the main theorist, Voegelin, whose ideas too, is set out, in their basic form, striking a good balance between necessary concision, and providing enough information for the reader, perhaps unfamiliar with Voegelin’s work, to grasp the essential ideas underlying his general thought relating to this subject.

This, is a valuable addition, as it gives the reader some idea of the historical background in which Voegelin was working, and the high respect and significance his contemporary scholars came to regard his work.

In this, the importance of Voegelin’s work, is given suitable merit, and more than this, in presenting his ideas alongside similar ethical and philosophical approaches, the author, does strengthen the arguments for broadening and deepening the way we approach, and consequently, should strive to understand these topics.

A good case is therefore made, to combine where appropriate, these mostly separate till now, different approaches, that as this more inclusive approach attests, allows for greater insights within this field of study.

Another real strength of this article is the wide use of other sources the author uses in order to support his main ideas and arguments. Here, wide reading, serves to set how study of this subject has developed into where it stands today, as well as indicating areas for interesting future studies. Thus, in providing this solid background based on wide reading and a mastery of the subject, the contextual aspects of Voegelin’s contribution is fairly critiqued, and adjudged as making, as well as fertile ground for making further valuable contributions to the study of this subject.

In his section on the etymology of the thesis of ‘administrative evil’ we are treated to a broad survey of the main influencing research papers and the scholars, either leading up to Voegelin’s own ideas, or (as represented by the references to the work of Adams and Balfour 1998), who seek to continue within the same general framework of ethical-based inquiry, as opposed to the more singular detached idea that sees all technological advancement purely in rational terms, and by definition therefore as enlightening and ‘progressive.’ The author explains well here, Voegelin’s contrary views to this singular, and arguably, one-dimension list view.

For example, in the middle of p.299, ‘consciousness’, as Voegelin, is thought to have understood it, represents a major omission in how we understand the idea of ‘administrative evil’, itself, the erroneous outcome of a falsely-held set of premises, he further asserts, changed how we perceive knowledge and reality, and the role humankind, and we as individuals play in this, to incorporate from the 16^th century, ‘instrumentalism.

This, fundamental shift, Voegelin says, subverts, what he believes, stands as the true order of things, one first grasped in the realms of Westernised ‘Classical’ thinking, by the Ancient Greeks, and most commonly identified in the philosophical thought of Aristotle and Plato.

In handling the more technical ideas associated with this subject, the author, once again, makes good use of the limited space available for discussing these. An excellent indication that this has been handled deftly and with skill is that while written in relatively simple terms, the ideas contained therein, are not likewise debased or short-changed through over-simplification.

The excellent use of scholarly notes here is also testimony to how the balance (alluded to above), can be successfully struck between brevity and thorough explanation. The reader does not feel compelled to break their reading and consult every annotated note, in order to fully grasp what point or set of ideas from which discussion is grounded.

That said, when the annotated notes are consulted, these are thorough and exact, and often successfully direct the reader to the relevant and important texts and writings on the subject, not only consulted by the author themselves, but as a means for the interested scholar to make their own minds up, that is, agree or disagree with others views, via a foundation of well-informed opinion.

Clear and concise, this article stands as an excellent example, not just as making a valuable contribution to this field of inquiry, but as a lesson in how to convey a strong, well-developed set of ideas successfully within a scholarly journal.

Becoming a model employer is a challenging task to achieve when it comes to resource distribution and recruitment and retention practices, as well as managing the costs of employee-related expenses. The role of a model employer can incorporate various obligations to the workforce. Among these are promoting diversity, union representation, effective and employee-friendly supervision, unbiased promotion, and fair compensation (Harris & Walsh, 2022; Nigro & Kellough, 2014). As the listed expenditure items suggest, the realization of the model employer project can be fraught with increases in labor costs and additional procedural protections for the public workforce, making employee termination overcomplicated. Despite changes to labor costs and protections, it is fair to anticipate governmental agencies in the U.S. to be model employers. The reason for keeping this expectation is that it would set an example of responsible staff management to private businesses, promote inclusion, and increase employee satisfaction.

To start with, expecting the completion of the model employee initiative is justified by the importance of governmental employees’ role in addressing large-scale issues affecting the nation, such as division. As the largest employee in the country, the U.S. Federal Government provides jobs to over two million people in non-postal positions (Harris & Walsh, 2022). The U.S. Federal Government regards stimulating labor union participation as one of its obligations as an employer seeking to serve as an example for others in terms of workforce protection (Harris & Walsh, 2022). As governmental agencies continue to strive for the model employer’s status by supporting labor unions, they promote collective bargaining institutions, opposing the divide et imperia approach to employer-workforce communication (Harris & Walsh, 2022). Therefore, to some degree, imposing this expectation on governmental agencies in the U.S. can address the prevalence of personal interest over the best interests of entire professional groups that contribute to the country’s well-being.

Moreover, because U.S. governments are ethically obliged to serve the public’s best interests and equality, expecting it to act as model employers, which involves investing in creating optimal conditions for employees with disabilities, is appropriate. On the one hand, political and monetary pressures on governmental employers are anticipated to intensify, urging a departure from the model employer philosophy (Nigro & Kellough, 2014). Aligning human resource plans to organizations’ larger strategic goals and current financial capacities is essential (Sifuna-Evelia, 2017). On the other hand, despite increased costs, governmental employers’ adherence to the discussed idea helps to compensate for the injustices affecting the disabled (Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion [EARN], (2020). Having a disabling condition decreases one’s satisfaction with professional growth opportunities, workplace reward fairness, organizational justice, and supervisor-employee relationships (EARN, 2020). The U.S. Federal Government understands that becoming an exemplary employer addresses these and other injustices and serves the public benefit (EARN, 2020). Considering that, the model employer approach aligns with the country’s overall orientation toward inclusion.

As the U.S. governments follow the model employer idea, especially with regard to disabled employees, they implement the biblical understanding of help, making proceeding with the idea ethically justified. Jesus, an ideal representation of sincere servitude, does not hesitate to invest time and effort into healing an innocent blind man, thus helping him to feel like others (New International Version Bible, 1978/2011, John 9:1). He mentions that “neither this man nor his parents sinned,” implying that his suffering is deeply unjust and has to be alleviated (New International Version Bible, 1978/2011, John 9:4). Figuratively, the U.S. governmental bodies’ striving for ascertaining the model employer’s status puts Jesus’s example into common practice by making sure that individuals with disabilities feel as protected as all other categories (EARN, 2020). “Giving strength to all” is one biblical principle of morally right leadership and government (New International Version Bible, 1978/2011, 1 Chronicles 29:12). Ensuring maximum protections for all public employers in spite of costs is in line with this narrative.

The determination to treat various categories of employees with similar respect will maximize the U.S. Federal Government’s role in modeling employee-friendly practices to be adopted at other levels. Relying on the National Labor Relations Act signed into power in the mid-1930s, the Federal Government emphasizes its obligation to serve as the model in terms of employee protection (Harris & Walsh, 2022). Specifically, it seeks to “model practices that can be followed by state and local governments and private-sector employers” (Harris & Walsh, 2022, p. 4). Also becoming an exemplary employer is also seen by the Federal Government as a matter of increasing the government’s overall effectiveness, which is a high-priority task per se (Harris & Walsh, 2022). The strategy’s potential significance in terms of raising employee satisfaction levels on a national scale makes following it crucial.

Therefore, despite extra expenses and changes to protections, expecting agencies in the U.S. government system to become model employers is reasonable as it would support employee satisfaction. Public employers in the U.S. will offer a model to adopt for their counterparts in the public sector. Expecting public employers to continue reaching this strategic goal can also be conducive to a climate of inclusion and non-discrimination on the national scale.

References

Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability Inclusion. (2020). The federal government as a model employer of people with disabilities: Research-based practices and findings. Author. Web.

Harris, K. D., & Walsh, M. J. (2022). White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment report to the President.White House. Web.

New International Version Bible. (2011). Biblica. (Original work published 1978).

Nigro, L. G., & Kellough, J. E. (2014). The new public personnel administration (7^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Sifuna-Evelia, M. (2017). Human resource management practices: A biblical perspective. Partridge Singapore.

Abstract

The report will discuss the major Public Administration theory proposed by Frederick Wilson Taylor. The Scientific Management Theory, proposed by Frederick was aimed at improving the operations of plants which were highly dependent on labor and used specialization and automation to make assembly lines faster and output levels higher. This theory’s advantages and disadvantages will be discussed in context with Public Administration.

Introduction

Born into an upper class Philadelphia family in the month of March in 1865, Frederick Winslow Taylor had the best education and being raised in a Quaker household which believed in plain living and high thinking, Taylor eventually grew up with those values (Papesh). Often referred to as the father of Scientific Management, Taylor’s theories are consulted when management decisions are being considered.

The Scientific Management Theory

Frederick Winslow Taylor is most notable for his contribution in the form of the Scientific Management Theory. This theory aims at trying to restructure the organization in such a way as to minimize waste by maximizing the productivity of the resources (O’ Brian, 2008). The reason scientific management became so popular amongst the managers was that this theory was able to answer the question on how to increase productivity by reducing the labor force which was consuming most of the expenses. The scientific management theory explained that instead of people working in a haphazard manner doing one task one day and an entirely different one the other, what they could do is to have the laborers doing specialized tasks on a more repetitive nature as it would reduce the time for production of a fixed number of goods and help make the laborers more efficient.

Taylor involved time function with the production function and movement studies of the laborers. This was the ground basis for his studies and the core of his theory. His stopwatch approach, in which he would time the employees performance over specific slots helped many organizations improve their productivity.

To support his theory, Taylor came up with the belief that workers can be classified into two broad categories. The first types of workers are those who are hard working, and are physically able to complete the tasks and do so willingly. He was of the opinion that everyone was capable of achieving the character of the first type worker. The second type of worker is one who is lethargic and does not work willingly and is not physically able to deliver.

Taylor saw workers as mechanical beings. He did not consider the human aspect of them while they were at work, and for his process to succeed they would have to be dedicated to their work and not have any other thoughts or feelings at that time (Maheshwari, 2002). This “inhuman” view of getting things done could be the strongest argument to be raised against his Public Administration theory.

Another reason why this administrative theory faced resistance is that it created two separate groups in the workplace. The management and the labor force. By creating two separate entities, Taylor inadvertently was promoting the notion that laborers have no say in how they are treated or have a say in the job that they do. This forms a bureaucratic sort of structure which may often lead to the management exploiting the laborers for their materialistic gains.

The Shop Management Theory

An extension of the fore-mentioned theory could be the shop management theory. The theory basically addresses the need for breaking down the procedures into its most unitary function and analyzing the time required for completing the task. This would help in minimizing the labor cost while helping in increasing the wage rates (Lauer Schachter, 1989). The time analysis helps in understanding what part of the process is consuming the most time. The process can then be dissected into its basic motions required and can be worked upon. This measure was initially aimed to improve the relations between management and the labor class. In later discussions I will discuss how this theory proved ineffective in the public administration sector.

Frederick’s shop management theory had 3 principle benefits for laborers. These included higher wages for employees, more open communication channels between labor class and management and more opportunities for advancement (Lauer Schachter, 1989).

Piece-rate system as per Frederick Wilson’s opinion

Taylor did not encourage the piece rate system. When the piece rate decreases to accommodate the reduction in costs for consumers laborers have to work either “harder” or “smarter” to be able to make more and more output to get regular income. This kind of system demoralizes the workers and they begin to feel resentment towards the management and leads to deterioration between management and workforce. His theory was that this system should be stopped and workers be provided with justice and opportunities for growth.

Taylor was of the opinion that goals should be kept with the aim of matching production levels to certain desires. If the goal of production was met then the employees should be given higher piece rates. To get higher piece rates the management would have to create production processes which improved the efficiency of the production change. The higher the production levels, the lower the cost of production should be. The amount saved by the reduced cost would be able to help in increasing the piece rate for laborers and they would seek to meet the aims set by the management. Thus, in the end the goals of the management would become the goals of the laborers (Oldham, 2000). As is evident, Frederick Wilson’s approach would again aim to improve relations between the two working classes and lead to a harmonious organizational structure.

Although personally not many laborers were willing to embrace the theory, reason being that the goals set by Frederick Wilson were quite difficult to reach. The goals set were quite high and aside from some laborers, many were unable to match them. This theory was practical yet the way it was implemented by Wilson led to resentment from the laborers.

Taylor and Public Administration

In 1906 Taylor proposed the use of his scientific management theory in the operations of government arsenals and navy yards. His foray into Public Administration was not as pleasant as he had hoped for as it resulted in mass strikes and movements against management by the laborers. The theories even though aimed at providing justice to the laborers and provide them with better working incentives were not held in the light that they were supposed to be. As compared to the private sector where employees had less job security and were willing to work no matter what the management decreed, the public sector had no such feelings. Laborers in this sector were not willing to put in the back-breaking effort demanded by Taylor. His theories based their success on laborers being highly productive without wasting time on any other activity, but laborers in the public sector were not used to such management beliefs. They had secure jobs and did not grasp the concept of matching company’s goals with their own. Thus, the application of Frederick Wilson’s public administration theories in the sector had negative results. Applying the shop management theory proved unsuccessful in the public sector to such an extent that there were mass strikes due to the time keeping of laborers actions and the government eventually had to ban the use of stopwatches in the production line. Thus, the theories which had proved successful in private owned organizations were not applicable in publicly administered organizations (Moss Wigfall & Kalantari, 2001).

Conclusion

In conclusion it can be clearly seen that as a Public Administrative theory, the Scientific Management Theory of Frederick Wilson Taylor has its advantages and shortcomings when applied to practical settings. The theory may help increase efficiency of the plant and make labor hours more productive and higher output yielding, but on the other hand the theory also leads to opportunities to exploit the labor force and to strip them of their most basic rights as humans and individuals.

References

1. Maheshwari, S. (2002). Human Relations Theory of Organization. In S. Maheshwari, A Dictionary of Public Administration (pp. 261-262). Orient Blackswan.
2. Moss Wigfall, P., & Kalantari, B. (2001). Taylor, Frederick Winslow. In P. Moss Wigfall, & B. Kalantari, Biographical Dictionary of Public Administration (pp. 132-133). Greenwood Publishing Group.
3. O’ Brian, B. (2008). Structuralist Theory of Bureaucracy. In O. B. Booth, Canadian Political Structure and Public Administration (p. 108). Emond Montgomery Publication.
4. Papesh, M. E. (n.d.). Frederick Winslow Taylor.