ศัพท์ รปศ.

Excerpts from
The Public Administration Dictionary
Ralph C. Chandler and Jack C. Plano
Thank you for all infomation : Web Admin.   อ่านบทความนี้เป็นภาษาอังกฤษพร้อมดิ้กชั่นนารีในตัว คลิ๊กที่นี่

Authority
The right to invoke compliance by subordinates on the basis of formal position and control over rewards and sanctions. Authority is institutionalized power. A power relationship is based on the ability to coerce compliant behavior if necessary.  Without authority, power relationships develop according to status, knowledge, and informal characteristics.   Authority, however, is based on legitimate foundations that formally establish structure and position within an organization.  As social groups are formed, superior-subordinate relationships form.  These power structures are perpetuated by tradition and eventually legitimized by law, statute, or formal rules.  German sociologist Max Weber identified three types of authority.  Charismatic authority  depends on the personal characteristics of the authority figure.  Traditional authority  is the stabilization of informal roles over time.  Rational-legal authority  is formally legitimized as when a state grants institutional rights to a corporation. This type of authority, like others, is delegated through hierarchical patterns and depends on effective flow of direction from top to bottom if it is to succeed.

Significance        Authority has a “zone of acceptance” according to organization theorist Herbert A. Simon.  Unless a directive falls within this zone, it will not be effective, since it will be rejected by subordinates.  Thus formal authority is limited.  More and more in modern organizations, workers are questioning formal authority.  If a synthesis of Weber’s three types of authority were used, the “zone of acceptance” would widen and the authority should become more effective.  In the typical hierarchical organization, formal authority is located at the top.  Often, however, this top position is dependent on people in lower positions possessing special knowledge or skills, in order to develop plans and give proper direction.  Often these persons are advisors not in line positions of authority.  Thus various staff positions might acquire "functional authority.”  Persons in these staff positions have little formal authority, but the top decision makers depend on them for advice or information. Authority is necessary to get the job done.  The extremes of authority—anarchy and authoritarianism—can, however, become dangerous.  The ideal would be an organization with enough authority at the top and among the managers to ensure cooperation and achievement of goals, while allowing enough freedom for creativity.  Anarchy leads to chaos, but it is often individuals struggling against authority who bring about change and progress.

Budget
A proposed action plan for government, defined in financial terms, that gives direction to the execution of policies and programs.  A public budget is (1) a fiscal statement describing the revenues and expenditures of all governmental units; (2) a mechanism for controlling, managing, planning, and evaluating the activities of each governmental unit.  A budget is political in content.  It represents government’s ranking of many activities.  It reflects the relative strengths of competing groups and the nature of the compromises reached among competing values.  A budget announces the direction in which government intends to go in the near future, usually in the next fiscal year.  Political scientist Allen Schick has identified three distinct purposes for which budgets have been used:  control, management, and planning.  These purposes correspond to three historical periods in this century during which certain types of budgets were dominant.  The United States is currently in a fourth period, with budgets now used for evaluation purposes.  Although a dominant type is found within each of the four periods, some previous budget techniques were used in each succeeding period.  The control function the first of the primary budgetary functions, was emphasized from about 1900 through the middle 1930s.  The line-item budget was widely used in this period.  The control period was featured by the establishment of central budgeting offices.  At the federal level, the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 created the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), which in 1970 became the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Prior to 1921, each agency presented it budget requests to Congress, whereas after 1921, in the new “executive budget,” requests from executive agencies were funneled into the Budget Bureau, which functioned as a central clearinghouse.  This system facilitated control by the president and by the Congress over requests for money and for expenditures once the requests had been approved.  The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 made the president responsible for formulating the national budget, with the Budget Bureau functioning as the chief staff agency to help him accomplish the task.  The management function  was emphasized from the middle 1930s until the late 1950s.  Performance budgets, also called program budgets, largely replaced line-item budgets in this period.  They were designed to answer the question of how well–that is, how efficiently–programs were being administered.  This was the first use of the budget as an evaluation device.  The planning function was emphasized from the late 1950s through the late 1960s in a budget process known as planning, programming, budgeting systems (PPBS).  The overall purpose of PPBS (also called PPB) was to create greater rationality in the budgeting process by requiring administrators to plan long-range organizational goals, to establish programs to attain those goals, and to budget specific projects within those programs to make them effective.  The evaluation function emerged during the 1970s and is represented by zero-based budgeting (ZBB).  This system requires all spending for each program and agency to be justified anew each year.  ZBB questions the need for a program at any funding level, and it rejects the incrementalist principle by which new budgets are constructed on the basis of last year’s funding level.

Significance        A budget was once considered to be little more than a document showing sums of money to be spent for particular purposes in a given period of time.  Budgeting, or the process of creating the budget, was treated as an isolated, routine, administrative duty. The relationship between budgeting and other managerial functions was thought to be minimal.  The primary concern and purpose of budgets was to ensure that money was spent only for what had been approved.  This accounting approach to budgets has yielded today to a much broader role for the budget maker.  A budget has come to be the single most important managerial tool available to the manager. It is a work plan and an evaluation instrument that gives direction to the execution of public policies.

Budget and Accounting Act of 1921
The basic legislation that established a rational budget-formation process in the executive branch of the federal government.  The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 was a major reform of the process by which national spending programs are formulated, authorized, executed, and audited.  For much of U.S. history prior to the act, agencies’ requests for funds were simply “packaged” by the Treasury Department and transmitted to Congress without change.  There was no unified executive budget.  Agencies put together their asking figures, went to legislate committees of jurisdiction, and wangled what appropriations they could get.  From 1885 to 1920, the appropriation requests for almost half the federal budget were distributed in the House of Representatives among seven substantive committees, rather than being considered by the Appropriations Committee.  In 1920, the House restored full jurisdiction to the Appropriations Committee, but a more sweeping reform of the budgetary process was  prevented by President Woodrow Wilson’s veto of the bill, which a year later became the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  President Wilson opposed the independence of the legislative auditor that the law would, and finally did, create.  The act created a new bureau in the Treasury Department, the United States Bureau of the Budget (after 1970 the Office of Management and Budget), to receive agency estimates and prepare the president’s budget.  It established the General Accounting Office (GAO) in the legislative branch as the independent auditor of executive accounts.  The president appointed its head, the Comptroller General of the United States, for a fifteen-year term.  The Comptroller General could be removed only by a joint resolution of Congress or by impeachment.  He could not be reappointed.  A major feature of the Budget and Accounting Act was that it did not limit the GAO to postauditing.  It gave the GAO the power to “prescribe the forms, systems, and procedure for administrative appropriation and fund accounting in the several departments and establishments, for the administrative examination of fiscal officers’ accounts and claims against the United States.”  The act specified that control of agency accounting systems and the preaudit were also responsibilities of the General Accounting Office.

Significance        The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 was the product of reformist pressures to establish a consolidated executive budget.  The act’s sponsors believed that financial corruption in government could be eliminated by the establishment of public financial bureaus under the chief executive.  With the executive budget came additional innovations such as competitive bidding for contracts, centralized purchasing, standardized accounting procedures, and expenditure audits.  Each of these innovations related directly to the idea that the budget was a useful device for controlling public administration and ensuring morality in government.  The line-item budget was identified with the reform movement as well. The first director of the Bureau of the Budget, Charles G. Dawes, was a typical spokesperson for the reform position. In 1923 he wrote, “The Bureau of the Budget is concerned only with the humbler and routine business of government . . .it is concerned with no question of policy, save that of economy and efficiency.”  The “economy and efficiency” theme went back to the origin of the movement that had resulted in the Budget and Accounting Act.  This was the report of the Taft Commission on Economy and Efficiency, whose 1913 report had called for an executive budget that would include functional categories beyond the traditional listing of personal services and things to be bought.  The line-item budget was made to order. It emphasized skilled accountancy, the objects needed to run an office or program and their costs, incremental policy making throughout government, dispersed responsibility for management and planning, and a fiduciary role for the budget agency.  Public Administrationist Nicholas Henry points out the following item as an example of the technical definitions stressed in line-item budgeting:  “pencils, 112, with 1/2 inch erasers, wood, No. 2 grade lead, 6”x1/4”.” Following passage of the Budget and Accounting Act such phrases as “watchdog of the treasury” and “balanced budget” were common, indicating the prevalent mentality of control and tight management.  The control turned out to be too tight and too inflexible.  The General Accounting Office (GAO), for example, assumed powers more appropriately lodged in the executive branch than in an agency of the legislative branch.  Given the fact that an agency’s spending officers were personally liable for expenditures that GAO could later disapprove, these officers often asked the GAO for advance opinions.  The GAO thus increasingly preaudited expenditures before they were made.  As a result, the GAO only delayed actions but became less an auditor; that is, it forsook the function of an evaluator after the fact and became more a participant in the very transactions it was supposed to audit later.  This situation was corrected in the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950.

Bureaucracy
A system of authority relations defined by rationally developed rules.  Bureaucracy as a term was first used in 1745 by Vincent de Gournay, a French physiocrat, to describe the Prussian government in which power resided with officials. It thus represented an addition to Aristotle’s thee forms of perverted government:  tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, which were the dark sides of kingly rule, aristocracy, and constitutional government.  Bureaucracy was developed by the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) as an “ideal type” of social system.  For Weber, bureaucracy is typified by a rational and effective organization that operates on the basis of (1) rules by which tasks are organized; (2) a division of labor which produces specialization; (3) hierarchy, meaning superior-subordinate relationships; (4) decisions by technical and legal standards; (5) administration based on filing systems and institutional memory; and (6) administration as a vocation.

Significance        Bureaucracy in the contemporary world refers primarily to government agencies that are characterized by day-to-day policy implementation, routine, complex procedures, specialization of duties, rights of authority and status, and resistance to change.  Bureaucratic behavior is often objectionable to citizens because it denotes delay, red tape, pettiness, ritualistic attachment to rules, and concentration of power in persons neither elected by nor responsible directly to the people.  The pathological aspects of bureaucracy, however, are largely the personal behavior patterns of individual bureaucrats and do not refer necessarily to bureaucracy as a form of social organization.  Administrative units are necessary for governance.  Civil servants who carry out the legally prescribed missions of government agencies are instructed to do so with maximum efficiency and minimum use of coercion.  Yet a bureaucracy’s legislative mandate is frequently worded in such a general way that bureaucrats also have a considerable amount of discretionary power. This is true whether the society is capitalist or socialist, democratic or authoritarian. In U.S. democracy a premium is placed on guarding against the development of an irresponsible bureaucracy by means of congressional oversight, presidential direction, the power of the purse, and judicial review.

Decision Making, Incremental
A major approach to problem solving that suggest a conservative and practical view to administrators in order for them to meet new challenges slowly and progressively.  Incrementalism recognizes that in their decision making administrators typically start with an existing body of policies, the most recent funding levels of programs, the store of knowledge each participant has of other participants’ views, and the resources they can mobilize to influence the outcome of the process.  Incrementalism prefers only minimal departures from the status quo, and decision makers are viewed primarily as problem solvers who may lack the intellectual capacity or the time to make a wide search for alternative solutions.  Incrementalist policies are almost always more politically expedient than alternative approaches.  The rational-comprehensive and mixed-scanning policies, for example, typically do not take into account the process of conflict, negotiation, persuasion, and cooperation among the private and public groups, institutions, and individuals with stakes in particular policies and decisions.  The incrementalist decision-making sequence calls upon the decision maker to (1) identify the problem; (2) investigate how similar problems have been handled in the past; (3) analyze and evaluate a few solutions that appear to be plausible; and (4) choose one that makes some contribution to solving the problem without drastically altering existing practices and institutions.  Incrementalism’s main defender, Charles E. Lindblom, called this the science of muddling through.  Administrators, according to Lindblom, muddle through in response to current events and circumstances rather than by the will of those in policy-making positions.

Significance        Incremental decision making describes the most common form utilized in U.S. public administration.  Its strength is that it reflects the society’s commitment to gradual change and accepts the pluralism that exists among clientele groups and within public agencies.  Incrementalism takes into account the triangular alliances that sometimes exist among an agency, its related congressional committees, and its clientele interest groups. It is short-term decision making in that decisions are a reply to immediate needs without much consideration for the long-term results.  Yet, Lindblom may have claimed too much for incremental decision making when he argued that small changes help avoid monumental errors.  That would be true only if the status quo itself were sound and conditions affecting it remained static. U.S. history is replete with examples of the necessity of bold and innovative changes in public policy, such as the freeing of slaves, regulating public utilities, and protecting consumers from false advertising.  Still the prevalence of the incrementalist model illustrates its utility.  The most powerful participants in the decision-making process often compromise using incrementalist techniques, each accepting a suboptimal service of an individual goal in order to get something out of the process.  Each participant knows that the decisional process of incrementalism is episodic and diffuse.   What is lost in the maximization of one’s goals this year may be regained next year in another decisional arena.  Since the values affecting incrementalist decisions are not distinct, the means of attaining such values, or ends, are also indistinct.  Thus means-ends analysis is inappropriate and limited because means and ends are intertwined throughout the process.

Decision Making, Rational-comprehensive
A systems analysis approach based on principles of scientific investigation and scientific problem solving.  The rational-comprehensive model of decision making is described by American political scientist Charles E. Lindblom as involving five features: (1) clarification of values; (2) means-ends analysis; (3) choice of most appropriate means to achieve desired ends; (4) comprehensive analysis; and (5) analysis that is theory-based.  Rational-comprehensive analysis defines the problem, develops alternative solutions, places values on the consequences of various alternatives, assesses the probability that they will occur, and makes a decision based on logical rules.  It seeks to sort out and achieve the goals decision makers believe are most valued.  The model attempts to serve the ideal embodied in Max Weber’s view of bureaucracy in which decisions are based o impersonal rules and techniques.  Rational-comprehensive decision making draws heavily on the economists’ version of how a rational “economic man” should make decisions.  It also relies on rational decision-making models developed by mathematicians and psychologists.  The economics/mathematics/psychology analyses describe a single person - rather than a group or an institution – faced with the need to make a decision.  These analyses also tend to idealize the decisional situation.  The decision maker, for example, knows the objective clearly and is perfectly informed on all possible means to that end, including how much it will cost in money, time, and resources, and the degree of certainty with which each alternative will achieve the goal.  Rational-comprehensive analysis assumes a static situation in which relevant conditions do not change, and no new information becomes available during the time period of analysis and decision.

Significance        Rational-comprehensive decision making is at one pole of a continuum that includes incremental decision making at the opposite pole, and mixed scanning in the middle.  Whereas incrementalism emphasizes political rationality, the rational-comprehensive approach emphasizes economic rationality.  The systems analysis techniques that are at the core of the rational-comprehensive model were in fact widely utilized in the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, particularly in the Department of Defense under Secretary Robert S. McNamara.  Author David Hallberstam and other close observers of the systems analysis approach in the Kennedy-Johnson years charge that public administration rarely have the brains and never the time to complete the laborious steps of analysis involved in the systems analysis process.  They also charge that cost-benefit analysis has no applicability to monquantifiable areas of public policy, and that high-level decision making is far more a matter of political insight and wisdom than it is an act of comprehensive rationality. Three Canadian researchers have concluded that the rational-comprehensive approach is rarely used in government despite widespread discussion of it.  Of 83 discrete policy choices, the researchers found serious analytic techniques employed in only 18 of the cases.  Despite a management literature replete with examples of systems analysis, this empirical study shows that in case after case only one policy alternative is fully explored.  What the Canadians documented was not rational-comprehensive decision making but what Herbert Simon has  called “bounded rationality” and what Amitai Etzioni has called “mixed scanning.”  Critics generally emphasize that the most important issues in government cannot be resolved by numbers, computers, or cost-benefit tables.  On complex issues, there is more likely to be conflict than agreement on values, and conflict over values is essentially a political question which cannot be subordinated to economic-modeled analytical techniques.

Hawthorne Studies
A series of experiments that provided the foundation for the development of the human relation school of organization theory. The Hawthorne studies were conducted from 1927 through 1932 by Professor Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger and their associates of the Harvard Business School.  The site of the studies was the Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant in Chicago.  The purpose of the experiments was to determine the basis of productivity among workers.  The experiments began by placing a group of five female workers in a test room, where observers carefully recorded changes in rates of production as working conditions were altered.  The women’s job was to assemble telephone relays.  Twelve physically based variables were introduced into the workers’ environment, such as work-room illumination, number and duration of rest periods, and length of the work day and work week.  Contrary to the assumptions of scientific management, the productivity of the five workers continued to rise regardless of the favorableness or unfavorableness of the changes imposed.  The control group on the main assembly line did fluctuate in rate of productivity as working conditions were altered.  It became clear that physical surroundings and work hours were not the central influences underlying the behavior of the five women in the relay assembly test room.  The researchers concluded that the operative influences were the workers’ opportunity to function as a small primary group and the psychological payoffs that came from their being the steady objects of attention in the experiments. It was theorized that the workers on the main assembly line produced less than they were physically capable of because of social norms and controls imposed by co-workers.  This effect was termed “artificial restriction of output.”  The major findings of the Hawthorne studies were summarized by sociologist Amitai  Etzioni:  (1) The level of production is set by social norms, not by physiological capabilities.  (2) Noneconomic rewards and sanctions affect the behavior of workers and limit economic incentive plans.  (3) Often workers act or react as members of groups.

Significance        The Hawthorne studies introduced a social-psychological perspective to industrial management and opened the way to investigation of management factors other than formal organizational structure and process.  These further investigations provided additional evidence for the human relations school of organizational theory, although the school did not have its full impact in terms of practical applications until after World War II.  When the practical applications were made, subsequent reorganizations of businesses resulted in as much as a 30 percent increase  in worker productivity.  Further research also showed the Hawthorne experiments to be somewhat restricted in scope and interpretation and rather artificially controlled.  New organizational theories would more comprehensively address the complex interaction of the human personality with the environment.  The last impact of the Hawthorne studies was in the emphasis placed on the increased status of workers and the shared sense of participation felt by workers as members of a primary work group.  Marxists and neo-Marxists explained the workers’ increased productivity by referring to the increased power the worker had over the work situation.  A revisionist view of the Hawthorne experiments was presented by R. H. Franke and J. D. Kaul in an article in the American Sociological Review  (1978).  An application of modern statistical techniques to the Hawthorne data convinced Franke and Kaul that most of the gain in productivity of the five relay assembly workers could be explained by (1) the assertion of managerial discipline in replacing two of the original five workers; (2) the onset of the Great Depression and consequent fear of job loss; and (3) the introduction of rest periods.  They downplayed the social and psychological payoffs the workers received as part of the experiment.  The description of these payoffs has been described in subsequent literature as the “Hawthorne effect.”

Human Motivation: Motivation-hygiene Theory   
A description of two factors believed to be present in every job: the maintenance factor and 'the motivation factor. Motivation-hygiene theory, also called two-factor theory, was developed by Frederick Herzberg in 1959. Herzberg was then a psychologist at Case West¬ern Reserve University in Cleveland. He conducted experiments in motivation with two hundred engineers and accountants, finding that certain maintenance needs had to be met before the worker could begin to be motivated. The maintenance factors were identified as (1) company policy and administration; (2) technical supervision; (3) interpersonal relations with supervisor; (4) interpersonal relations with peers; (5) interpersonal relations with subordinates; (6) salary; (7) job security; (8) personal life; (9) work conditions; and (10) status. Herzberg called the maintenance factors dissatisfiers. They could not motivate, but they were prime negative factors if they were lack¬ing. The motivational factors were identified as (1) achievement; (2) recognition; (3) advancement; (4) the work itself; (5) the possibility of growth; and (6) responsibility. These factors Herzberg called satisfiers. They are the things that could really bring about worker dedication to a job.

Significance         Motivation-hygiene theory is an organization develop¬ment concept that can be used in attempts to motivate an employee by increasing his or her satisfaction with work. The satisfiers are in agreement with Douglas McGregor's "Theory Y" view of organizations and with the top levels of Abraham Maslow's "ladder of needs." The principal contribution which motivation-hygiene theory makes to motivation theory is its focus on the job itself.  The factors a worker can really sink his teeth into are not peripheral and extrinsic, such as another water fountain or carpets on the floor, but the job itself Improving surroundings and developing harmonious relations among co-workers and supervisors may generate some euphoria, but what really produces high-level morale and productivity, according to motivation-hygiene theory, is doing a job worth doing. Herzberg saw that most organizational efforts to "motivate?' employees are really aimed at affecting the hygiene factors. People cannot be motivated by cutting the work week. Motivated people do not seek less time on the job; they want more. Such devices as human relations and sensitivity training merely deal with improved supervision and interpersonal relationships. These cannot motivate employees. They can only make them not dissatisfied. Motivation-hygiene theory leads directly to a strategy of job enrichment for organizations convinced of the theory's utility. Job enrichment can be achieved if jobs can be restructured to involve the theory's motivator factors.

Human Motivation: Need Theory
The belief that human needs are primary job motivators. Need theory was first advanced by clinical psychologist Abraham H. Maslow in "A Theory of Human Motivation" published in the Psychological Review in 1943. Maslow said there are five basic human needs that are sequential in nature, that is, they are arranged in a stepladder chart, with the most basic needs at the bottom of the ladder. The needs are prepotent. Until each one is relatively satisfied, a person will not strive very hard to meet the next level of need. The needs are (1) physiological; (2) safety and security; (3) love and belonging; (4) self-esteem; and (5) self-actualization. The most basic need is for air, food, shelter, sex, and elimination. Then comes physical safety, job security, and provision for old age. Because safety and security needs are second on the list, a person can reconcile a daily trip to work in dangerous mines or on lofty scaffolding to satisfy his or her need for food and shelter. Love and belonging are the individual's group needs, the need to be loved and accepted by significant others. Maslow's clinical data indicated that the failure to love and be loved is at the heart of many individual and group social problems. Self-esteem is the yearning to see oneself as a worthy and admirable person. How can we really like ourselves? Can we be right with ourselves by using the right deodorant and driving the right car? Maslow's data brought into serious question the accuracy of advertisers' promises of self-respect through possessions. Finally, self-actualization is an innate striving among human beings to create and to maximize One's talents. Self-actualized persons are fulfilled persons who demonstrate the following characteristics of mental health: (1) they can accept the way things are; (2) they are not afraid to get close to others; (3) they are efficient judges of situations; (4) they are creative and appreciative; (5) they march to a different drummer; and (6) they are willing to learn from anyone. Need theory maintains that when a person is reasonably well fed, secure, loved, and confident, he or she then has the physical and psychic power to begin to create, self-direct, and accomplish. But the most basic needs must be met first. When there is no bread, humans live by bread alone.

Significance       Need theory was developed from clinical experiences with brain-damaged and mentally disturbed persons. The tone of Maslow's philosophy is extremely positive. He saw human needs and drives as good rather than evil. He felt that each person has a natural drive toward health, happiness, and accomplishment, rather than a negative desire for failure and self-destruction. Need theory's empha¬sis on people instead of formal organization was the second major attack on Taylorism to come in a decade. Combined with the im¬plications of the first attack, the Hawthorne studies, need theory provided the underpinning for a new approach to management in the United States. Yet, as discussed by J. D. Williams in Public Administra¬tion: The People's Business (1980), Maslow's work has been roundly criticized. The principal elements of criticism are (1) There is little empirical support for the hierarchy of needs theory in field studies. M. A. Wahba and L. G. Bridwell reviewed eight field studies, for example, and found no confirmation of the five-level needs ladder. (2) Culture makes a crucial difference in both the determination of needs and of how they are to be satisfied. The needs are not instinctive at birth. (3) Job satisfaction is heavily influenced by such factors as worker IQs, personalities, the technology employed, and many other factors unrelated to Maslow's restrictive list. (4) Self-actualized workers, each marching to the beat of their own drummers, would approximate organizational chaos. (5) The manager's real world includes many workers who are not, and probably will never be, self-actualized. Managers have to accept less than full worker motivation as a fact of life and adopt a more authoritarian leadership style than would be appropriate for a fully self-actualized work force. F. K. Gibson and C. E. Teasley suggested in the Public Administration Review in 1973 that need theory is based more on metaphysical attraction than empirical evidence.

Human Motivation: Theory X   
A task-oriented theory of management that maintains an organiza¬tional climate of close control, centralized authority, autocratic leadership, and minimum participation in the decision-making process. Theory X was advanced as a typology by Douglas M. McGregor in his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise. The assumptions of Theory X are (1) the average person dislikes work and will avoid it as much as possible; (2) most people have to be forced or threatened by punishment to get them to make the effort necessary to accomplish organizational goals; and (3) the average person is basically passive and therefore prefers to be directed, rather than assume any risk or responsibility. Above all else, he or she prefers security. Under Theory X, management's task is to harness human energy to meet organizational requirements. There is a well-defined organizational hierarchy with a narrow span of control. Workers are considered to be extensions of machines. The organizations that use Theory X successfully are highly mechanistic. They have a pronounced division of labor, direct supervisory controls, and formal rules to assure that the workers' contribution to the enterprise is simple labor. A Theory X organization has jobs of high task simplification and low task difficulty. The jobs are routine, repetitive, and simple, as in an assembly line. Conventional programs of performance appraisal apply, such as rewards geared to numbers of pieces produced. Organizations that apply Theory X seldom create opportunities for workers or encourage their growth. They provide strict leadership and high standards of conformity.

Significance       Theory X is an application of management expert Frederick W. Taylor's scientific management principles. Taylor's key assumptions about people were that (1) the chief thing people want from their jobs is money; and (2) people are basically simpletons who require strict guidance to perform well. A study by N. Z. Medalia published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1955 suggests that when the worker is an authoritarian personality type, he or she is more productive when working for a Theory X manager. A similar study by A. D. Calvin published in the Journal of Social Psychology in 1957 found a 100 percent improvement in the output of workers of comparatively low intelligence under Theory X leadership in contrast to their output under democratic leadership. American scholar Robert Dubin reported in Leadership and Productivity in 1965 that Theory X methods are more appropriate for assembly line and continuous flow technologies (i.e., fully automated processes), but that nonauthoritarian leadership is more appropriate for "whole unit technologies." Whole unit technologies are the social worker, the highway patrol officer, and the sanitation inspector, for example. The possibilities of psychological repression are pronounced in Theory X and lead to the bureaupathic behavior described by Victor A. Thomp¬son in Modern Organization (1961). Such behavior is explained as defensive reactions developed by individuals to protect their psyches from the frustration of not being able to achieve their personal goals within the organization. Whatever its liabilities, however, the Theory x organizational structure is the conventional and classical one in American public administration. It represents a strict hierarchy with close supervision.

Human Motivation: Theory Y   
A people-oriented philosophy of management which holds that people have the capacity to direct their behavior toward organiza¬tional goals. Theory Y was proposed in 1960 by management theorist Douglas M. McGregor, who believed strongly that the basic motivat¬ing force in a man or woman comes from within. Theory Y assumes that an effective organizational climate has looser, more general supervision than is present in Theory X. The Theory Y manager uses greater decentralization of authority, relies less on coercion and control and more on a democratic leadership style, and emphasizes participative decision making. Theory Y is based on the following set of beliefs: (1) work is as natural to humankind as play or rest and, therefore, is not avoided by human beings; (2) self-motivation and inherent satisfaction in work will be forthcoming in situations where the individual is committed t6 organizational goals; hence, coercion is not the only form of influence that can be used to motivate; (3) commitment is a crucial factor in motivation; it is a function of the rewards coming from it; (4) the average person learns to accept and even seek responsibility, given the proper environment; (5) contrary to popular stereotypes, the ability to be creative and innovative in the solution of organization problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population; and (6) in modern organizations human intellec¬tual potentialities are only partially realized. Theory Y implies that, ii' management can make it possible for people in an organization to satisfy their needs and realize their potential by removing artificial barriers that frustrate need satisfaction, the organization will be more effective. McGregor and other organizational humanists maintained that, if an organization is to be healthy and capable of creatively responding to and managing change, an atmosphere conducive to individual growth is essential. The Theory Y manager creates op¬portunities, releases potential, removes organizational obstacles, encourages growth, and provides guidance. The theory relies on self-control and self-direction.

Significance       Theory Y-oriented management works best in science-based organizations that must operate under conditions of environ¬mental turbulence. Research has shown that Theory X, on the other hand, seems more applicable to programmatic endeavors, such as certain kinds of manufacturing and processing, characterized by stable conditions. The success of any management theory, however, depends on the appropriateness of the theory to the task at hand and the individual's motivation pattern. The tendency to label Theory X "bad" and Theory Y "good" is inappropriate. Theory Y has its critics. Among the doubts expressed about Theory Y are these: (1) Despite the evidence presented by Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg, not all employees are looking for self-actualization and more respon-sibility. Many workers just want to do their job and go home.  (2) Theory Y errs in downplaying the enormous importance of economic rewards to most workers. (3) Participative management is basically manipulative. Managers use consensus-building techniques to win employee support for the course they have already decided on.  (4) Hierarchy is not the great evil Theory Y suggests. It provides an orderly ladder for the upwardly mobile employee to climb toward increasing responsibility and authority. (5) The quality of group decisions may be considerably below that of decisions suggested by gifted staff people and bright people in the chain of command. (6) Managers who may have worked hard and stood in line for years to attain power are not about to share decision making with their employees. (7) Theory Y is blatantly utopian and attempts to fly in all kinds of weather, regard less of worker skills and personality, the job to be done, and the technology employed. Clearly Theory Y's prescriptions do not fit all management situations. But its central precepts-a whole view of the human personality, the need to make work worthwhile, and the potential which lies in self-actualized human beings-have left an indelible mark on public administration in the United States.

Human Motivation: Theory Z   
A Japanese approach to management that emphasizes participative management from employees who are committed to their work through cultural tradition, shared socioeconomic values, and commu¬nal forms of decision making. Theory Z is characterized by personnel policies that reflect high levels of trust, lifetime or long-term job security, and holistic career planning. The term was popularized by William G. Ouchi in his 1981 bestseller, Theory Z.    With Theory Z has come new attention to the phenomenon of organizational culture. Symbols and myths replace bureaucratic methods of giving orders and closely supervising workers, thus leading to increased productiv¬ity and mutually supportive relationships at the workplace. In its simplest form, the assumption of Theory Z is that people respond conscientiously when they feel wanted, needed, and trusted.

Significance      Theory Z has taken its place alongside Theory X and Theory Y as a descriptive philosophy of management. Whereas Theory X places a strong emphasis on task orientation, and Theory Y just as strongly emphasizes people, Theory Z is transformation oriented. It assumes that the highest potential for the organization lies in a consciously fostered relationship between the organization and each of its employees. Theory Z postulates that productivity is dependent upon trust, intimacy, and flexible relationships among institutional actors. This view of the cultural properties of an organi¬zation represents an integration of humanistic and neoclassical orga¬nization theory. It occupies an increasingly prominent place in management literature, due in large part to timing.  Given lagging productivity in the private sector, loss of public trust in governmental institutions, poor scholastic achievement scores, and a variety of other indicators of widespread organizational problems in the United States, the prescriptive framework of Theory Z has been very favorably received.

Line-Item Budget
A detailed financial plan of specific spending requests an executive presents to a legislative body for approval.  In a line-item budget, each budgetary division is listed by organizational unit, such as a department or agency, and by category  of expenditure, such as salaries, purchases, and supplies.  Line-item budgeting, also called cash-based budgeting, was widely used in the United States from about 1900 through the middle 1930s.  It gave legislative bodies maximum control over administrators.  No expenditure (item) approved by the legislature could be changed subsequently by an agency administrator without authorization from the legislature.  Administrators, therefore, had little discretion or flexibility in the management of their agency’s resources.  If money had been allocated for a particular piece of equipment or program, administrators were required to spend it as specified even though conditions had changed and the money might better be saved or spent for another purpose.  In the national government, congressional and executive control over the budget was  increased and institutionalized by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  That historic act established the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the General Accounting Office (GAO).  The OMB reviews all requests for funds before the president submits the budget to Congress, and the GAO examines expenditures to ensure they were made in accordance with congressional intent.  Line-item budgeting favors those managers who “go by the book.” Meaning they follow a budget precisely with detailed accounting procedures.  Although line-item budgeting has yielded to other forms of budgeting at the federal level, it is still widely used in state and local governments.

Significance        Line-item budgeting reflects the scientific management school of thought and emphasizes honesty, efficiency, and inflexibility.  If an agency fails to spend all the money it has been allocated, even if there are justifiable reasons, it can expect to be penalized in the next budget.   Line-item budgets do not reward administrators who cut expenses in a program or who try to be flexible when suggested by circumstances.  The implication of line-item budgeting is that administrators cannot be trusted, for if money remains on a line after the budgeted year, it is probably because the organization’s request was inflated.  The main advantage of the line-item budget–tight control–is also its main limitation.  A line-item budget tells administrators how much money is being spent for each item, but not whether the money is being expended wisely.  Individual expenditures are not related to each other or to the agency’s goals or programs.  Evaluation is extremely difficult in a line-item budget, and there is no direct linkage to public policy goals and objectives.  All a line-item budget indicates is the total dollar amount for each individual agency and category.  It does not indicate what collective purpose the items are intended to serve.  Hence, duplication of effort may be encouraged and remain undetected in line-item budgeting because control focuses on expenditures rather than on planning and evaluation.  It also encouraged destructive competition among agency heads for the funds available.

Organization Theory, Classical
The view of organizations as social systems in which power and authority flow from the top downward through a hierarchy, and accountability flows from the bottom upward.  Classical organization theory states that the mission or goal of an organization can rationally be broken down into specific tasks, which lead to the accomplishment of that goal.  The arrangement of work constitutes rules so that the organization can operate on a continuous basis.  The members of the organization know what tasks they are responsible for doing.  Once the various tasks that relate to the organization goal are identified, functional specialists can be hired to handle these tasks with a high degree of efficiency.  The various functional specialists in an organization are coordinated and directed by bosses within the hierarchy, thus producing the familiar superior-subordinate relationships within the organization.  The view of authority from above defines classical organization theory.

Significance        Classical organization is believed by its proponents to have several benefits over organizations arranged along collegial or honorific lines.  Chief among classical organization theory proponents is German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920).  Classical organization theorists tend to believe in the historical inevitability of the increasing dominance of legal-rational organizations.  Even Weber, however, who thought bureaucracy to be the best example of a legal-rational organization, worried in 1909 about the dehumanizing of people in the bureaucracy itself.  The primary weakness of classical organization theory is its underestimation of the human factor in administration.  It accepts the simplistic view that people in a hierarchical relationship to others will carry out orders.  As neoclassical organization theory discovered, sometimes they will and sometimes they will not.

Organization Theory:  Humanism
A view of organizations that is concerned with the quality of life of individual workers within the organization.  Organizational humanism began with the recognized dehumanizing tendencies of the scientific management movement of the early 1900s.  In humanism’s link to scientific management, however, both were concerned with workers’ productivity and such related matters as absenteeism and turnover.  The humanists demonstrated in the 1950s and 1960s that happy workers were more productive workers.  “Happiness” was usually called “job satisfaction” in the research studies and was unrelated to monetary and promotional rewards.  Satisfaction was rooted in interpersonal relations in the small face-to-face group of fellow workers and their immediate supervisor.  Humanism stated that a satisfaction-generating and productive atmosphere was not a bureaucratic one, but one that fostered democratic participation by the workers in decision making for the group.  The supervisor was not the autocratic and directive, as in scientific management, but informal, consultative, trusting, and concerned for team members’ welfare.  Organizational humanism had a normative commitment to the individual’s opportunity for self-actualization and to the equality of persons.  The primary spokesperson for the movement-also called the human relations movement –made clear the conviction that the large formal organization with its hierarchical authority structure is repressive. Thee and other ideological elements of the human relations movement were prominent in the formation of the new public administration in the late 1960s.

Significance        Organizational humanism has been severely attacked by modern researchers.  Accumulated evidence now seems to indicate that the conditions that make some workers happy make other workers unhappy, and that happy workers are not necessarily more productive workers.  The grounds of criticism of the human relations school have been summarized by James W. Fesler as follows:  (1) Most of the research providing the empirical proof of human relations school doctrines was conducted by “true believers.”  (2) The sweeping contrast of the “bad” hierarchical organization with the “ideal” humanist organization was overdrawn and rested on assertion rather than scientific study of large organizations.  (3) In humanism’s commitment to development of the whole person, the job was treated as if it were the whole life.  Many people obtain important satisfactions apart from the job, and a high overall level of happiness is often achieved despite only moderate satisfaction with the job’s socio-psychological attributes.  (4) Humanism’s normative commitments blocked out awareness that a qualified leader needs to lead and not just be one of the boys.  Organizational humanism nevertheless survived and prospered in the form of organization development.  Its emphasis continues to be on authentic interpersonal relationships within the organization.

Organization Theory:  Pluralism
The view that society is characterized by the political warfare of groups seeking to have their interests prevail, and that administrative organizations are themselves the product of conflict and accommodation of interests.  Pluralism regards the administrative process as another battleground to which interest groups carry their struggle from the electoral and legislative arenas.  The administrative structure is fragmented, just as Congress is fragmented, and the president is just another player.  The president is so occupied with policy and political leadership, speaking for the combination of forces which enabled him to attain power, that the president can give only partial and discontinuous attention to maximizing the administrative authority of the position as chief executive.  Administrative agencies, therefore, will be responsive primarily to Congress, and especially to congressional committees and their leaders.  That is the source of both substantive power and appropriations.  The task of administration, therefore, is essentially the same as that of politics:  to facilitate the peaceful resolution of conflicts of interest compatibly and to distribute power among groups in the society.  The pluralist approach to public administration classically represented in David B. Truman’s The Governmental Process (1951) and J. Leiper Freeman’s The Political Process:  Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations  (1965).

Significance        The pluralist model of organization theory charged that the “textbook model” of classical organization theory is an unreal portrayal of the executive branch and is in conflict with democratic values.  The classical model is one in which an organization is composed of clearly bounded units and subunits that are so arranged as to provide a hierarchical structuring of authority, often pictured as a pyramid.  The pluralist model yields a more realistic description and explanation of what goes on in administration and politics.   But as James W. Fesler points out, the fragmentation it describes “and even celebrates” as part of the genius of the U.S. political system affords little or no guidance as to what direction one should move in if he or she had the opportunity to express a preference or exert influence.  Although pluralism separates what is  form what ought  to be, it does not help those confronted by opportunities to change organizations.  The hierarchic model has the operational significance of a belief widely subscribed to.  It has been the pattern advocated by every reorganization commission that surveys federal administration.  Many of the advances made in administrative organization have been attempts to apply to a pluralistic government the arrangements of the hierarchic administrative model.  Yet the advances have been limited by the power groups identified by the pluralist model, forces which do not wish their access to the administrative process blocked by a strengthened hierarchical administration.  Efforts to improve government and its administration often emphasize the coordination, rationality, and legitimacy found in the hierarchic model.  The pluralist model stands as a warning that, unless there is accommodation of the variety of interest groups, congressional committees, and government agencies that form the pluralist perspective, these efforts for improvement will have limited success.

Participative Management
A process by which workers are brought into organizational decision-making processes to varying degrees, primarily on matters that directly affect them.  Participative management is a product of the human relations movement in management theory and is growing as a result of studies done in the 1960s which demonstrated that the more input workers have about what they do and how they do it, the more productive they will be.  The goal of participative management is to increase the organization’s output, while simultaneously meeting the needs of individual employees.  The strategy worked well for such organizations as the McCormick Company, the Glacier Metal Company of Great Britain, the BEA Associates of New York.  Each of these companies set up committees of employees who made decisions concerning job design, promotion, salary, and retirement plans.  Those persons who used the files, for example, decided how to set them up.  An organization may pay people for their judgement as well as their labor, so that creative approaches to management prevail.  The participative management approach appears to work best in smaller organizations where subordinates are skilled professionals.  It also works well in situations where organizations are in a state of change.  Workers who have difficulty coping with change find change easier to accept if they have helped define their new working conditions.

Significance        Participative management is based on studies such as those completed at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center in 1969 which showed that all of a sample of 1,533 workers interviewed ranked interesting work and personal authority far ahead of good pay and job security.  An explanation for the survey’s results can be traced back to Abraham Maslow’s theory of human motivation and the hierarchy of human needs.  People need not only income from their work, but some sense of status and recognition, as well as feelings of self-worth.  Most of the advantages of participative management fall in three categories:  (1) subordinate input can improve the quality of decisions; (2) participative management leads to acceptance of and commitment to organizational goals; people tend to support what they help create; and (3) participation promotes teamwork within the organization –it tends to erase the “tunnel vision” workers have if they do not have the whole picture.  The disadvantages of participative management are (1) often there is not enough time to have the many meetings required to get everyone involved; (2) participation sometimes leads to conflict and antagonism between workers and managers; and (3) participative management can produce confusion of roles. Once a worker has been “given an inch,” he sometimes “wants a mile.”  The disadvantages illustrate the key issue involved when a manager decides to allow his or her subordinates to participated in decision making:  communication.  People must be aware of the degree to which they will be participating in management decisions, as well as their role in the total organizational environment.  Without effective communication, participative management practices will not achieve their aim, which is to allow workers to become mentally and emotionally involved in their jobs.

Pendleton Act (Civil Service Reform Act of 1883)
A major law enacted by Congress that ushered in a transition in the federal government’s personnel system from a politically dominated, corrupt, and inefficient spoils system to a merit system based on professional competence.  The Pendleton Act established the United States Civil Service headed by a Civil Service Commission (now the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] and the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB]) responsible for administering the system in the executive branch.  Major changes ushered in by the act included (1) establishing a merit system based on recruitment, competitive examination, political neutrality, and job tenure; (2) permitting the president to expand the personnel placed under the protection of civil service from approximately 15 percent of federal employees in the 1880s to a current figure in excess of 90 percent; and (3) initiating a unique “open” personnel system whereby individuals can move from positions in the private sector to civil service jobs (lateral entry) and back again to private employment, thus providing flexibility and maximizing opportunity and expertise. 

Significance        The Pendleton Act began a process of replacing the spoils system that had been bought into the national government in the 1820s by President Andrew Jackson.  By 1883, the voting public was thoroughly disappointed, even outraged, by the blatantly political abuses that typified the federal personnel system.  Two other factors –the assassination of President James Garfield by a rejected office seeker and an effort by the Republican majority in Congress to oblige the public and at the same time ensure that Republican officeholders would remain in their jobs–contributed to the passage of the reform act.  The basic principle embodied in the Pendleton Act–that the federal personnel system should be based on merit–served as a beacon which led the states and many local units of government to establish civil service merit systems.  Although a number of major civil service acts have been passed by Congress since 1883, including the Ramspeck Act of 1940 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the Pendleton Act remains the basic personnel law governing the federal bureaucracy.

Performance Budgeting
A method of budgeting that collects and arranges individual expenditures into the functions, activities, and projects an organization is to perform. Performance budgeting, also called program budgeting, takes former line items and attempts to see how they relate to the larger purpose of the agency, rather than looking at them as a string of separate expense items.  Performance budgeting gives administrators much more personal responsibility for their organization’s budget than does line-item budgeting.  While administrators must meet an efficiency objective, they are given considerable discretion in the use of appropriated resources.  Line-item budgeting sees administrators essentially as clerks.  Performance budgeting  sees them as managers.  Legislators exercise much less direct control over administrative agencies under performance budgeting than they do under line-item budgeting.

Significance        Performance budgeting is primarily concerned with efficiency and economy in government, not with whether government effectively responds to public needs.  Administrative and managerial skills tend to dominate agency decision making under performance budgeting, with budget analysis focused on precision accounting and control.  There is heavy emphasis on work-cost measurement.  The development of performance budgeting with its focus on evaluation represented progress from line-item budgeting, with its emphasis on how many typewriters and paper clips are needed.  But even performance budgeting does not ask the basic questions:  Should this particular program be implemented in the first place?  A performance budget only assesses the program that has been determined as the one the agency should administer.  The possibility remains that even though the program is being run efficiently, it is not the best one to meet the agency’s or the government’s goals. The result often is wasted money.  Performance budgeting does not select the “best” program from among all the possibilities.  It only assesses what is already in existence.   Program selection as a part of budget making as the primary function of another approach to budgeting:  planning, programming, budgeting systems (PPBS).

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Systems  (PPBS)
An approach to budgeting which assumes that the search for an selection of goals, programs, and projects can be quantified.  PPBS administrators identify all the possible alternatives in each budgeting category and then apply cost-benefit analysis to each one.  The alternative that shows the most benefit for a given cost, or a predetermined benefit for the least cost, would be the best choice – the “best” choice being the “most rational” choice.  Under PPBS (sometimes called PPB), administrators are involved with evaluation at virtually every step of the budgeting process.  A great deal of managerial responsibility flows to top administrators. Their expertise as system analysts and “economic experts” tends to preempt legislative decision making.  Under performance budgeting, for example, efficiency analysis is applied to a program after  the legislature determines which one the agency should implement.  In contrast, PPBS administrators have already completed most of the analysis before the legislative can determine policy.  Thus legislative choices are severely limited by administrators who preselect policy alternatives. 

Significance        Planning, programming, budgeting, systems  (PPBS) had a brief and glorious history in the federal service. PPBS was fully implemented in the Department of Defense in 1961 under Secretary Robert S. McNamara.  PPBS was an effort to reduce competition among the armed services, each vying for control over a particular weapons system and each convinced its own program was essential to the national defense. PPBS worked well in gaining overall coordination of defense policy that it was adopted in all federal departments in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.  By 1967, the Bureau of the Budget had implemented PPBS in twenty-one agencies and looked toward its implementation in many others.  By 1971, however, the Budget Bureau’s successor, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), had issued a memorandum to all federal agencies indicating they were no longer required to submit a PPBS budget.  What had happened in the interim was more than the coming of a new Republican administration to Washington.  The basic weaknesses of PPBS had overtaken it.  Chief among the weaknesses was the limitation of the rational decision-making model itself.  It was difficult for administrators to identify and quantify all possible goals, programs, and projects.  Trying to place an accurate and agreed-on dollar amount on the costs and benefits of social programs was virtually impossible.  As one observer stated, “How does an administrator determine if a park is worth more or less than a library?” PPBS also ignored three political consideration, which undermined its usefulness and credibility.  (1) Elected officials suspected that their control over many key policy decisions had been usurped by PPBS administrators. Legislatures believe they were not receiving all the information they needed, and that they had no way to evaluate the data they did receive. PPBS administrators controlled much of the policy making debate through their computer-simulation models, which turned out the analyses of the various alternatives. PPBS tended to reverse the role of legislators and administrators.  The legislature was placed in the position of having to look to the bureaucracy for policy and information.   This was not acceptable to most legislators.  (2) Many of the planning projections in PPBS were for periods of five to seven years.  Legislators tended to think and work within the shorter spans of their own terms in office or until the next elections.  (3) PPBS ignored the political importance of individual politicians and groups.  The most rational or cost-effective program according to PPBS might not be the most politically feasible one, especially if it failed to reflect the political strength of legislators or constituencies.  Political realities or values could not be neglected.  Despite the weaknesses of PPBS, however, its advocates did bring planning and rationality to the budget process.  They made people aware of the need to evaluate critically various policy and program alternatives. PPBS employed techniques, such as cost-benefit analysis, that are still used for assessing the relative merits of policy choices.

Politics-administration Dichotomy
The view that public administration should be premised on a science of management and kept separate from traditional partisan politics and general policy making.  The politics-administration dichotomy suggested to American readers by Woodrow Wilson in his 1887 essay “The Study of Administration” posits a major distinction between politics and administration.  Politics is the proper activity of legislative  bodies and other policy-making groups. Administration is the proper activity of administrators, who carry out the policies stated in the laws of the jurisdiction or political unit. The context of the dichotomy was the reform movement of the 1880s, which had resulted in enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1883.  Reformers, such as U. S. Senator George H. Pendleton, argued that public appointments should be based on fitness and merit rather than partisanship.  Hence, “politics” was out of place in public service.  The classic justification for the separation of policy and administration was made by Max Weber of the University of Munich in 1918.  The essence of administration is to execute conscientiously the order of the political authority, he opined, even if it appears wrong to him.  In the Weberian version of the politics-administration dichotomy, the administrator is impartial, passionless, and assumes no personal responsibility for policies executed.  In modern life, the complexities of governmental operations have increasingly permitted and even required administrators to become involved in making “political” decisions, especially in the regulation of the private sector.

Significance        The politics-administration dichotomy was accepted somewhat uncritically in public administration until shortly before World War II.  Wilson’s theme fell on the fertile intellectual ground of the Progressive movement in the United States, and Weber’s related ideas captured the authoritarian predisposition of the cameralist tradition in Europe, which was primarily concerned with developing administrative techniques for managing highly centralized states.  The dichotomy broke down in the United States under the practical demands of loosely phrased laws which urged public administrators to carry out the public interest.  Because much discretion was available to administrators, they, along with judges, became supplementary lawmaker.  Paul H. Appleby observed in Policy and Administration (1949) that legislatures merely hold reserve powers to be invoked only if administrators violate the implied limits of their discretion.  Administrators also blur the politics-administration distinction by formulating recommendation for legislation, by entering alliances with interest groups, and by withholding or giving only selected information to legislators.  As early as 1930, Harold Lasswell, in Psychopathology and Politics, argued that the real significance of the dichotomy was that “the internal bureaucrat” who viewed his agency’s goals through “psychological spectacles” was able on the basis of his “hidden agenda” to exercise power which was informal, unseen, and greatly underestimated by doctrinaire proponents of the dichotomy.

POSDCORB
An acronym developed by Luther H. Gulick to describe managerial activities common to all organizations POSDCORB stands for planning, organization staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting.  In “Notes on the Theory of Organization” (the lead article in a volume Gulick edited in 1937 for the President’s Committee on Government Reorganization –called the Brownlow Committee after its chairman, Louis Brownlow), Gulick explained the seven basic function of executive.  These are (1) planning – working out in broad outline those things that needs to be done and the methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose of the organization; (2) organizing – establishing the formal structure of authority through which work is subdivided and defined; (3) staffing – recruiting and training a group of people to do the work, and maintaining favorable working conditions for them; (4) directing – making decisions and embodying them in general and specific orders and instructions, thus serving as leader of the enterprise; (5) coordinating – interrelating the various parts of the work of the organization; (6) reporting – informing those to whom the manager is responsible as to the progress of the work, by having the manager and his subordinates keep themselves informed by record keeping, research, and inspection; (7) budgeting – controlling the affairs of the organization through fiscal planing and accounting.  POSDCORB was greatly influenced by the work of Henri Fayol (1841-1925), a French mining engineer and executive, and by Lyndall Urwick, a British consulting industrial engineer, who collaborated with Gulick in the preparation of Papers on the Science of Administration (1937).

Significance        Gulick’s POSDCORB emphasis is more specific than Weber’s ideal types in a bureaucracy and more general than Taylor’s focus on organizational productivity. POSDCORB aimed at turning “principles” of administrative theory into administrative practice.   Its primary concern is how organizations might actually be structured, and what the roles of their executives are.  POSDCORB also describes staff activities that are supportive of organizational units not directly involved in the production of the services, or products that constitute the main functions of an agency. Staff  activity may be contrasted with line  activity, which refers to units directly engaged in producing the organization’s services or goods.  Contemporary criticism of POSDCORB emphasizes that, as an analytical tool, it does not include all staff or executive functions carried on within a modern organization.  Data processing and evaluation, for example, are two staff activities not included in POSDCORB.  Some critics also charge that leadership is undervalued in Gulick’s scheme.  In the context of the period when it emerged, however, POSDCORB made the classical tradition practical and gave easy-to-understand advice to novice administrators.  Despite academic reservations about the inclusiveness of the concept, its continuing influence through government-sponsored training programs has been substantial. POSDCORB served as a convenient starting point for a generation of writers interested in dealing with different aspects of administration. They added to, subtracted from, and amended the acronym to meet their needs. POSDCORB was indeed a seminal idea.

Public Personnel Administration
Managing and developing policies for the body of persons in public employment.  Public personnel administration (PPA) deals with “people problems” in the environment of public merit systems.  Merit has not always been the environment of PPA, however, as the following analysis of the evolution of the field illustrates.  Public administrationist Nicholas Henry divides the development of public personnel administration into six phases.  Phase 1 (1789-1829) was the Guardian Period.  This was the period of “government by gentlemen,” to use Leonard D. White’s term.  President George Washington set the moral tone of the early federal bureaucracy by appointing men to office who were reputed to be persons of character as well as competence.  Character was synonymous with merit, and merit from 1789 through 1829 meant a respected family background, a high degree of formal education, and substantial loyalty to the president.  The public servant was a member of the establishment.   Roughly 65 percent of the top-level federal appointees during the guardian period were drawn from the landed gentry, merchant, and professional classes, making the public service highly elitist in nature.  Phase 2 (1829-1883) was the Spoils Period.  Administrative historian Leonard D. White attributes the name of the period to a remark by United States Senator William L. Marcy of New York, who in 1832 commented that American politicians “see nothing wrong in the rule that in the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.”  The rationale of the spoils system was that if presidents were to emerge from the class that earned its own living – as Andrew Jackson had emerged in 1829 – then politics had to be made to pay.  This “democratization” of the public service meant that it became a system subject to bribes and graft.  Appointive power was transferred from the gentry to political parties.  Phase 3 (1883-1906) was the Reform Period.  Reform of the spoils system was encouraged by two major developments in the year 1881:  (1) the merger of thirteen state reform associations to form the National Civil Service Reform League; and (2) the assassination of President James A. Garfield by a dissatisfied office seeker   In 1883, Congress passed the Civil Service Act (Pendleton Act), which created a bipartisan Civil Service Commission (replaced in 1978 by the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board).  The Civil Service Commission was charged with the duty of filling government positions by a process of open, competitive examination.  In Phase 4, the Scientific Management Period (1906-1937), public administration in general and PPA in particular were decisively influenced by development in business administration.  Business administration at that time was dominated by the time-motion, scientific management school represented by Frederick W. Taylor and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth.  The ultimate value of this period was efficiency, which was compatible with the concepts and structure of the civil service.  During the reform period, efficiency had been associated with morality and lack of corruption and was “neutral.”  Public personnel administration in the scientific management period that followed combined goodness, merit, morality, neutrality, efficiency, and science into one conceptual whole.  Phase 5 (1937-1955) was the Administrative Management Period.  The New Deal brought a new view of government into focus and into practice.  Government should be active, aggressive, and positive in trying to solve public problems.  Management  became the new goal of public personnel administration.  This view implied that there was something more to PPA than mere efficiency.  People in public service were perceived as having a political as well as an administrative function the traditional politics-administration dichotomy was questioned, with “management” serving as something of a code word to express this new dimension of PPA.  Phase 6 (1955-present) was the Professional Period.  As a result of the work of the second Hoover Commission, whose report was issued in 1955, public personnel administration entered a new phase of professionalism.  The report indicated a new awareness of professional education as a contributing factor to government effectiveness.  Although the report represented the high-water mark of the administrative management period, it also viewed management itself as a profession.  Administrative management was perceived as an area of research and learning that was needed for good government regardless of the specialization of an agency.  Public personnel administration today continues this “professional” approach.

Significance        Public personnel administration accurately reflects the growth and development of public administration.  In some ways, PPA  is  public administration in that the main conceptual battles fought over the years–for example, the spoils system, the politics-administration dichotomy, efficiency in government, civil service laws and regulations, and the characteristics of professionalism–have all been developed to the point that there are now personnel directors in almost every agency of government.  Rather than being staff appendages, these directors are a part of the centralized management of the agencies themselves.  People, it has been generally recognized, are the key to effective government.

Representative Bureaucracy
A system in which public employees are seen as representative of various segments of the population rather than an neutral civil servants.  Representative bureaucracy is based on the belief that the ratio of each minority at each employment level in a governmental agency should equal that group’s proportion in the general population.  Representative bureaucracy is related to the concept of social equity in that it is based on the principle that in a true democracy, public service should reflect the racial, ethnic, and sex composition of government’s constituencies, so that responsive public policy can be made.  It also embraces the principle that a bureaucracy exists not only to provide public service, but also to provide jobs and  economic advancement for the public it serves.  Public jobs are seen as right every group in society should share in equally.  Representative bureaucracy is in conflict with the merit system, which emphasizes the hiring of people solely on the basis of objectively determined qualification, and it bears some resemblance to the patronage system.  Proponents of representative bureaucracy insist that public employees under merit systems are not neutral people doing non-political tasks.  They are policy makers using discretion in allocating public funds and deciding between and among competing interests.  Classical political neutrality is seen as a sacrifice of the skills and assets  an intentionally diverse group of public servants can bring to an agency.  Furthermore, the merit system contains many considerations not really based on merit.  Veterans preference points, for example, discriminate against women.  The movement for increased representativeness in bureaucracy has accrued four major benefits:  (1) increased minority and female employment increases the economic, social, and political status of those groups; (2) recipients of public services benefit because their group needs are better addressed; (3) bureaucracies benefit from increased responsiveness to minority problems and from having a more diverse staff; and (4) the entire democratic system benefits because the bureaucracy is a  closer reflection of the population it serves.

Significance        Representative bureaucracy is not a new concept in U.S. public administration.  Concern for representatives in public employment was the rationale for the spoils system of President Andrew Jackson, and its reflected in the civil service reform movement of 1880s as well.  The Pendleton Act of 1883 outlined a proportionate representation plan  among the states for filling civil service positions in Washington, DC.  The plan helped southern states gain representation they would not otherwise have had.  The representativeness sought today is not geographical, however; it is aimed at affirmative action for minorities and women. In a number of major cities roughly half the population is black, and the overwhelming majority of victims of crimes is black as are the suspects.  Yet the majority of police officers is white. Advocates of representative bureaucracy say a police force can deal more effectively with the public if it has roughly the same racial mix.  Police officers are not seen as neutral public servants performing mechanical tasks, but as individuals who exercise direction in their work and whose relationships with clientele groups are affected by their color. School teachers are also seen as public employees having a high degree of discretion in dealing with their “clients,” and whose race and sex affect relationships. Two frequently raised objections to representative bureaucracy are (1) it provides less technically competent public employees than merit systems provide; and (2) it discriminates in reverse.

Scientific Management (Taylorism)
The set of beliefs ascribed to Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915), a mechanical engineer who pioneered the scientific management movement in large U.S. organizations from 1885 to 1911.  Taylorism is focused on the mechanistic characteristics of administration. With stopwatch and measuring tape, Taylor conducted precision studies of the physical movement of individual workers, demonstrating empirically that organizations could and should convert the management process to a system of scientific laws in which efficiency, standardization, and savings were the ultimate organizational goals.  There was “one best way” to manage workers and “one best way” for workers to carry out their tasks.  Otherwise, they would waste both time and motion.  Taylorism this stressed high productivity and disciplined labor.

Significance        Scientific management was one of the first efforts to analyze work methods systematically and to estimate management influence on productivity.  Although it was abandoned as a comprehensive theory, scientific management provided measurable impact on the subsequent development of management and organizational theories.  Scientific management has been criticized as incomplete because it failed to consider the human element in production, the importance of informal organizations, and the effect or organizational environment.  With its obsession with efficiency and maximum productivity, it also failed to consider organizational goals and occasions when maximum productivity may not be desirable.  Nevertheless, some organizations still operate on scientific management principles, and even those that do not often contain remnants of the Taylor system.  For example, time and motion studies are still used by industrial engineers and by job analysts for training and appraisal purposes.  Industrial psychologists sometimes use scientific management standards as part of employee selection criteria.  Finally, scientific management had a direct impact on the establishment of public administration as an academic field.  Early public administration theorists welcomed the idea of private sector scientific management because that meant public  management might also be elevated to the status of a legitimate science.  Among the public administrationists who were greatly influenced by Taylor’s work, and who used it as a springboard to launch new theories of their own, were Leonard White, Luther Gulick, and Lyndall Urwick.  The “principles of administration” movement which became popular in the 1930s was directly related to the scientific management movement of the previous generation.

Max Weber (1864-1920)
German sociologist and intellectual father of the bureaucratic model of organization theory. Weber advanced a theory very similar to the classical model of Henri Fayol, Luther Gulick, and Lyndall Urwick, although Weber reach his conclusions by a different route.  Weber was a contemporary of Fayol, Gulick, and Urwick, as well as Woodrow Wilson and Frederick Taylor, but his views did not become widely known in the United States until 1946 and 1947, when translations of his work by H. H. Gerth, C. Wright Mills (From Max Weber:  Essays in Sociology), A. M. Henderson, and Talcott Parsons (The Theory of Social and Economic Organization) appeared.  Weber focused an important part of his work on why people feel an obligation to obey commands without assessing their own attitudes about the value of each command.  This focus was part of Weber’s emphasis on the organization of society as a whole and the role of the state in particular.  He wanted to understand the relationship between power–the ability to make people do what they do not ordinarily do–and authority.  Weber described authority as legitimate   power.  He said that a subordinate’s belief in legitimacy produces a stable pattern of obedience and deference to the source of command in the organizational system  Authority cannot depend on appeals to a subordinate’s purely material interests and a calculation of personal advantage, or on affectional motives such as liking or admiration of the superior.  Neither can authority depend on ideal motives.

Weber developed three “pure” types of legitimate authority as discussed by James W. Fesler in Public Administration:  theory and Practice  (1980).  (1) Traditional authority claims legitimacy on the basis of control patters that have been handed down from the past and that, presumably, always existed.  The immemorial traditions are sacred.  Legitimacy is closely related to a citizen’s felt obligation of personal loyalty to the individual who has attained chiefship in the traditional way. Change is inhibited by precedent.  Those exercising authority are afraid to stretch the traditional ways of doing things because the ensuing change might undercut their own source of legitimacy.  Whim is allowed in traditional authority systems, because there is an intensely personal relationship between the rulers and the ruled.  If the traditional ruler oversteps the loose, traditional bounds of arbitrariness, however, he or she personally may be deposed; but a successor would be chosen by traditional means, and the system of authority would continue.  (2) Charismatic authority rests on personal devotion to an individual because of the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of that person.  The position a charismatic leader occupies in society is not sanctified by traditional criteria.  The charismatic person is not bound by traditional rules and is capable of sparking revolutionary changes.  Charismatic authority does not accept any system of rules for organizing society. There is no law, no hierarchy, no formalism except the basic demand of devotion to the  charismatic figure.  His or her followers are duty-bound to follow the leader’s commands, which are supposed to lead to accomplishment of his or her mission.  The followers obey because of personal devotion, not because rules force then to obey. The leader intervenes whenever and wherever he or she feels like it, unbound by tradition or law.  Charismatic authority is opposed to regularized routines.  Both traditional and charismatic authority may legitimately be exercised arbitrarily or by revelation and inspiration.  Both types of authority therefore lack rationality.  Weber believed they were responsible for almost all organized action in the world before the Industrial Revolution.  The early modern period demanded the establishment of social organization on a stable basis, but one which was still open to change.  (3) Legal-rational  authority is based on a “legally established impersonal order.”  Obedience is due “the persons exercising the authority of office under it only by virtue of the formal legality of their commands and only within the scope of authority of the office.”  The legal-rational system of authority is based on rules–rules rationally developed by people. Such rules can be intentionally changed to cope with changes in the environment in a systematic, more highly predictable way than is possible under either traditional or charismatic authority.  The quintessence of legal-rational authority is bureaucracy.  The heart of bureaucracy is the system of authority relations defined by rationally developed rules.

Significance        Max Weber was one of the most influential figures in modern intellectual history.  His ideas on legal-rational authority closely parallel the principles of classical organization theory as developed in the United States.   Both emphasized efficiency.   Both emphasized administrative regulations establishing fixed and official jurisdictional areas of responsibility as part of a systematic division of labor.  Both emphasized the authority to give the commands required for the discharge of duties assigned.   Both emphasized principles of office hierarchy and levels of graded authority in a firmly ordered system of superior and subordinate.  Both emphasized that a rational bureaucracy should be composed of officials who were full-time, salaried, appointed careerists, with thorough and expert training for the career who were selected on the basis of technical qualifications.   Both insisted that the human beings who constitute “the bureaucratic machine” should be stripped of their human differences.  Given these and other similarities, it is an oddity in administrative history that classical organization theory has been scathingly attacked, while Weber’s bureaucratic organization theory continues to command profound respect in widely diverse intellectual circles.  It is not as though Weberian theory does not have its weaknesses.   One weakness is the unacknowledged conflict between the hierarchic authority Weber emphasizes and the specialized, professional knowledge and technical competence he also recognizes.  Weber fails to note that this technical knowledge gives “authority” to  subordinates having such specialized knowledge and competence.  Another weakness of Weber’s theory is the uneasy relationship between bureaucratization and modernization in developing societies.   The Chinese critique of bureaucratic forms of organization is a powerful one, based on objections to the Weberian emphasis on technical competence and on a strong Maoist affirmation of political purity.  During the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution periods of Maoist history, the Chinese press was full of examples of highly trained specialists who could not solve the simplest work problems, and of unskilled personnel who, using common sense and political inspiration, were able to come up with vital work innovations.  “Specialists in command” was a slogan that came to signify an ideological position in China strangely related to, but very unlike, the Weberian bureaucratic model.  A statement much easier to understand was Mao Tse-tung’s exhortation in 1933:  “This great evil, bureaucracy, must be thrown into the cesspool.”  Throughout his career, Mao held a sharply critical view of bureaucracy and bureaucrats.  For a profound discussion of Weber’s theoretical weaknesses, the reader should consult Martin King Whyte’s “Bureaucracy and Modernization in China:  The Maoist Critique” in the American Sociological Review,  April 1973.

Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)
American educator, historian, public administrator, and twenty-eighth president of the United States.  Wilson is widely credited with being the first American scholar to advocate the systematic study of the operations of government.  As a political science professor, he wrote a famous essay in 1887 entitled “The Study of Administration,” which marked the beginning of American academic interest in professional public administration. Wilson’s essay reflected the values of the progressive movement which four years earlier had gained passage of the civil service act and which was pressing to reform the management of American government at every level.  Typical of these powerful citizen associations were the Civil Service Reform League, of which Wilson later became president, and the New York Bureau of Municipal Research which was founded in 1906.  The reformers were motivated by a sense of outrage against the corruption of the spoils system and by the belief that they could never bring “efficiency and economy” to government so long as the vagaries of party politics interfered with governmental management.  Public administration could be made scientific only if administrators were free to concentrate on the execution of policy after the legislature and chief executive defined it.  Both politics and policy making were therefore to be taken out of public administration. According to James W. Fesler in Public Administration, Theory and Practice  (1980) Wilson stepped boldly into this movement with advice for both reformers and scholars.  He asked them to forget their “paper pictures” of good government and study how administration really worked.  The French and the Prussians, Wilson pointed out, had developed the most advanced administrative systems in the world and Americans should study them to learn how to manage public programs.  Wilson took exception to this colleagues in jurisprudence and politics who were concerned with the great constitutional issues, such as the separation of powers.  Such debate was largely irrelevant to the reforms needed I public administration.  Wilson established four guiding assumptions to chart a course for the immediate future in the study and practice of public administration:  (1) the science of administration should be based on a single organizational prototype universally applicable to all political regimes; (2) any good science of administration must divorce itself from the field of politics; (3) the guiding value of the science of administration is efficiency; and (4) efficient public administration requires a single dominant center of governmental power.  Despite public administration’s later discomfort with Wilson’s paradigm, and Herbert Simon’s blistering attack on it, the paradigm remained for many years in the mainstream of academic public administration.  Simon tried to demonstrate that the basic principles of administration, begin imprecise, would produce inefficiency.   But he was unsuccessful in his attack because he failed to erect any alternative model in the place of Wilsonian orthodoxy.  Simon suggested that scholars study administrative decisions, but the idea never caught on.

Significance        Woodrow Wilson’s influence on the development of American public administration–its theory, study and practice–can hardly be overestimated.  Yet his analysis of the universal elements of public administration–those independent of time, place, and political system–contained a central and profound contradiction.  Basic to much of Wilson’s thought was his perception of administration as a neutral instrument, distinct from policy, politics, and particular regimes.  Such a perception seems essential to define a distinct field of study, separate from the study of policy and politics.  It was a critical assumption for Wilson’s thesis that nowhere in the whole field of politics can the historical, comparative method be used more safely than in administration.  Wilson firmly believed that Americans, therefore, could learn administration from the Prussian and French (Napoleonic) autocracies without being infected by their political principles.  Wilson advanced two themes contradictory to this line of argument.  One was that administration must be fitted to a particular nation’s political ideas and constitutional system.  The science of administration, Wilson opined, has been adapted to the needs of a compact state, and to centralized forms of government.  We must Americanize it.  The second contradictory theme blurs the distinction Wilson made elsewhere between policy and administration.  Wilson therefore pleaded for the vesting of large powers and unhampered discretion as the indispensable conditions of administrative responsibility.  This is hardly the limited role for public administrators Wilson insisted on earlier.  These contradictions in the thought of Wilson do not detract substantially from his achievement, however.  They illustrate the varied positions that together form the whole truth about public administration.  Modern scholars still debate the extent to which Woodrow Wilson was ambivalent about what public administration really is, but none dispute the impact of his one unambiguous thesis – the public administration is worth studying.

Zero-base Budgeting (ZBB)
A system of budgeting that requires all spending for a program or an agency to be justified anew each year.  ZBB was developed at the Texas Instruments Company in 1969 and was first adopted in government by Governor Jimmy Carter in preparation of the fiscal 1973 budget of Georgia.  It challenges the principle of incrementalism in budgeting, which assumes that next year’s budget will begin at or near the funding level of the current year’s budget.  ZBB questions the need  for a program at any  funding level.  Its three basic operational elements are (1) identifying decision units;  (2) analyzing decision   packages, each reflecting a different level of effort for carrying out the work in the decision unit; and (3) ranking of decision packages, in descending order of importance.

Significance        Zero-base budgeting  provides a means for eliminating or reducing low-priority programs.  The ZBB may be used to shift resources within an agency to high-impact programs that might not otherwise receive funding increases, or it may be applied to seeking to achieve a balanced budget.  The national government first became involved with the ZBB approach in 1977 when, in a letter to department and agency heads, President Jimmy Carter order the adoption of zero-base budgeting  throughout the executive branch.  The estimates for fiscal 1979 incorporated ZBB into the budget preparation process.  The Government Economy and Spending Reform Act of 1976 requires a congressional  zero-base review and evaluation of government authorization for programs and activities every five years.  Both executive and congressional review address two questions:  (1) Are the current activities efficient and effective?  (2) Should current activities be eliminated or reduced to fund new, higher priority programs or to reduce the current budget?

ลิ้งค์ที่น่าสนใจ
1. เว็บแปลภาษา-ดิกชั่นนารีลองดู ใช้ง่ายๆ ได้ผลดี
2. เว็บวิกี้พีเดีย แหล่งรวมข้อมูลและลิ้งค์เชื่อมโยงที่ยอดเยี่ยม
3 คู่มือการออกเสียง
4. รวมนักปราชญ์โลก