GREAT deal of effort has been made to describe the characteristics of the effective administrator and those ascribed to the average good citizen.
Certainly the effective administrator must be honest, loyal, trustworthy, and love his fellowmen if he is going to be allowed to run loose in society and not be avoided by his own secretary. It is very doubtful, however, that he can parlay those virtues alone into a successful career as an administrator. Neither does a knowledge of the science of administration seem to assure success in the use of the science. Knowledge of the theories and principles of administration provide important tools for the administration but the value of these tools, like that of all tools, depends upon the manner in which they are used.
It is what the administrator does, or does not do, that produces an effect on the organization. administration is practiced, and it is the practices of the administrator that determine his effectiveness. But any attempt to define good administrative practices ends up pretty much in the same situation as attempts to described the good administrator. Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to study ineffective administration and attempt to isolate its cause first.
Here are seven causes of ineffective administration that were observed in a study undertaken for such a purpose. These causes represent very human tendencies shared by all administrators and perhaps can never be completely eliminated. Effective administration seems dependent, however, on successfully modifying their effect on administrative conduct.
An awareness that these tendencies do exists, and the ability to recognize them in one’s own behavior, is the first and most important step toward neutralizing them.
Fault No. 1: the Black-or-White Complex
High among the causes of ineffective administration is the tendenby to classify everything as black or white – as good or bad. This tendency denies the fact that the it is the executive’s task to discriminate between acceptable alternatives more often than between right and wrong.
Situations are rarely ever black or white; they are usually varying shades of gray decisions will reach the desk. The easy ones will be settled down the ladder, where the facts are more abundant and better understood.
Fault No. 2: Making Mountains Out of Molehills
Somewhat related to the back-or-white tendency is the failure to recognize the necessity of proportion in administration. This faults manifests itself in several ways in administrative behavior.
One of these is best described by the old expression “ making a mountain out of a molehill. ” This results in overemphasizing incidents and problems that have little consequences to the organization. It not only wastes the energies and attention of the administrator, but it diminishes his influence in matters that are important. Subordinates easily develop organizational calluses, and for this reason both the whip and the sugar should be given only when circumstances warrant.
Fault No. 3: the Perfectionist Approach
One of the most common characteristics of ineffective administration is the tendency to attempt only perfect solutions instead of the accomplishable. This can be described as the all-or-none complex.
Administratively, this all-or-none complex can lead to either of two extremes – both of which are harmful to organization.
On the one extreme it may mean that improvements are never undertaken because the ideal solution isn’t currently available or possible. In such instances, necessary changes are never started because the opportunity for perfect solution rarely comes along. Major changes are always difficult to accomplish, and even the bravest and most energetic executives are sometimes tempted to rationalize their distaste for facing up to those difficulties by holding out for the perfect solution.
On the other extreme it may mean that the action undertaken is too radical, and the organization is subjected to turmoil and violent upheaval. Under these circumstances the changes attempted may be ultimately correct but currently just not accomplishable. Such moves ignore the necessity for administrative timing.
The successful administrator must, on occasions, tolerate conditions of inefficiency rather than court failure by attempting to clear all the obstacles with one big jump. He must determine his goals and evaluate the opposition to them. This permits him to maintain constant pressure toward the desired ends without allowing the pressure to explode into an open break.
Only the most adept and agile of quick-change artists could qualify for a role that calls for so many different faces as some critics would have the administrator present simultaneously:
The administrator or executive is exhorted to serve as a leader but to let the group command; to serve as a social worker but to abhor paternalism; to play Freud but respect the privacy and dignity of the individual; to bring the influence to his organization; to eliminate stress within the organization but to encourage and nurture the nonconformist and the misfit; and to have convictions but be so broadminded he does not know the difference between right and wrong. The overtones imply that high efficiency is somehow equivalent to low morality.
If we want to improve the practice of administration we must first establish firmly what administration is and what it is supposed to do. If we want to prevent its gullibility to each new fad, we need to understand the role of administration sufficiently to determine the relevancy and utility of the new ideas and tools that become available.
Fault No. 4: Yielding to Pressures of the Moment
Before someone interprets the above as an argument that the good administrator is afraid of his own shadow, an opposite characteristic that is equally conducive to ineffective administration should be pointed out.
This is the urge to act from expediency – the attempt to buy one’s way out of problems by yielding to immediate pressures and ignoring the long-run effects of the solution.
Sidestepping an important issue is just as bad as stiff-arming it. In some ways it may be worse, because it permanently weakens the administrator’s influence in the organization. Yielding to the pressures of the moment is an open invitation for a raid by the most aggressive and most vocal members of the organization. It is a sort of “cafeteria” administration, in which everyone strong enough picks out his own policies. It is properly interpreted by other members of the organization as evidence of indecision and uncertainty and, organizationally speaking, the only thing worse than a bad decision is in indecision.
Obeisance to form has been particularly noticeable in administration in recent years and accounts, among other things, for the rapid growth in red tape that has increasingly plagued organizations. Valuable new ideas often prove to be hindrances because of the emphasis given to form over substance.
For instance, much study has been given in the last two decades to communications in administration, and now communications is a much improved tool for administration.
Some of these organizations have developed elaborate means for communicating but do not seem to realize that the quality of the communication counts far more than the form.
Fault No. 5: the Victory Complex
The obsession to win represents another serious handicap of some executives. This is often demonstrated in the attempt to win a “moral victory,” even after decisions have been clearly discredited. Too much emphasis is given in administration to the necessity of saving face and not enough thought paid to the problem of saving respect.
The administrator may silence, but he cannot fool, those responsible for carrying out an impractical decision. If face saving is really important, it would seem better strategy for the administrator to sweep his errors under the carpet as quickly as possible rather than given them the prominence that results from the disgruntlement and ill will of those compelled to operate with them.
Fault No. 6: Getting Too Close to His People
The failure to maintain an impersonal status in the organization often proves to be a serious handicap to the administrator. He must keep a sufficient air of aloofness to permit administrative action without its being taken personally.
Admittedly, he must be responsive and friendly so that his colleagues will not hesitate to approach him. But he must recognize the difference between liking his associates, and liking everything they do. Personal relationships that inhibit detached evaluation and frank criticism represent a disservice to all concerned.
Criticism is fundamental to improvement, and every member of the organization has a right to expect that he will be told when his performance needs improvement. Nothing
shakes the morale of an organization as much as the sudden lowering of he boom on an individual without prior note to improve his deficiencies.
The rules of fair play are applied more strictly to the executive than to anyone else, and these rules require that a person be told where he stands and why.
Fault No.7: Believing That People Act Logically
This matter of human conduct brings us to another cause of ineffective administration. This is the mistaken assumption that people act logically. Individuals do not usually act either logically or illogically when they are personally involved. In such instances they are most apt to act nonlogically.
This is because they are human beings and bring to every situation their own personal experiences, biases, desires, and needs. Situations are seen from each individuals uniquely personal perspective. This requires that the administrator must, at time, temper his decision so as to allow for the personal equation, and work toward the modification of preconceived notions of those affected by his decisions.
An effective administration designs the organizational structure so as to encourage creativeness and the transmission of ideas. It attempts to create a climate in which the enterprise has the greatest possible gain from the ideas generated at all levels within the organization.
The organization needs the obedient rebel who thinks on his own, but it cannot function efficiently and tolerate the rebels who have no sense of the responsibilities to which they must be obedient.
Mission of Administration
The mission of administration is obviously to accomplish the purposes of the enterprise.
Its sole purpose is to secure the ends of the enterprise through influencing the behavior of all concerned in achieving those ends.
The sorts of behavior that administration may seed are dictated by the ends the enterprise is intended to serve. Administration is a process and , like all processes, it works within a set of dimension varies with the ends sought by the particular enterprise.
At least four such dimensions of administration can be identified. One id the efficiency dimension, best defined as performance-oriented. It is based on the concept that the purpose of the organization is to produce the best possible product of service at the least possible cost.
This one must be tempered by the second, which can be classified as the human dimension. It is personnel-oriented and is based on the concept tat the purpose of the organization is to provide the greatest possible benefits to the members of the organization. This is the dimension to which unions attach almost complete attention.
Both of these dimensions must in turn be compromised with the public dimension. This dimension is community-oriented and represents the concept that the welfare of the public is paramount. Our public-regulated enterprises, such as the utilities, are example of enterprise where this dimension has been highly emphasized.
Finally, there is the institutional dimension with strengthening and enlarging the enterprise itself. There is a sharp differences between the goals of the enterprise and the goal of maintaining and perpetuating the enterprise. This is best illustrated in the nonprofit and noncompetitive enterprises that fight to survive long after the purpose for which they were established have been fulfilled.
