The administration of government business is one of the key fundamental issues in public administration theories and practices. The framework of administration determines the core performance objectives that enable the public service—as the engine room of the state—to coherently and efficiently complement democratic governance anywhere across the world. When the bureaucracy emerged in the 19th century, it was founded on a notion of public administration that is coherent only to the extent that it sees the state in action and interaction.
In this context, administration becomes synonymous with government, and it essentially concerns the entirety of the state’s activities in terms of the coordination and enforcement of policies, and the people and agencies that are involved in these activities. The concept of government represents the prototypical hierarchical and rule-bound institutions of the state based on formal and fixed laws and norms of operations. Seen in this context, government refers to that very institution that exerts executive authority within a political system and over the society.
Government becomes the complex and organisational centre of administrative power separated, by that fact, from the rest of society. This is the concept that gave birth to the ‘management-by-directive tradition’ which undergirds Max Weber’s articulation of the nature of the bureaucracy. This tradition centralises the decision-making process in a manner that gives the administrator or manager (in Nigeria and in a significant sense, the permanent secretary) a complete discretionary control over the employees and the entire administrative context.
This tradition stipulates a set of administrative goals and objectives, rules, procedures, and regulations, as well as well-defined roles and responsibilities which serve as pathways to achieving these objectives. All these are codified as “general orders” that the employees are expected to strictly follow under the omniscient supervision of the manager or administrator.
As a leadership paradigm, it follows what Martins G. Evans and Robert J. House call the path-goal trajectory of leadership effectiveness. This theory insists that the effectiveness of a leader is determined by the leader’s capability to assist the followers or employees in achieving organisational goals through motivation, clarifying the paths to the goals, and eliminating impediments.
This tradition owes its most influential theoretical basis to the groundbreaking work of Max Weber who erected public administration on the command-and-control structure of the Prussian army. The idea of bureaucracy, for him, is based on the notion of legal-rational authority; in other words, it is a structure with an authority that activates basic democratic principles and codes which employees and the society recognise as legitimate and for which career officials are custodians.
Each position in the bureaucracy has its clearly defined rules, procedures, duties and rights, which are clearly defined to determine how the given authority is to be exercised. The bureaucracy therefore promises a stable organisation that is neutral, hierarchically organised, efficient and inevitable; and is characterised by precision, continuity, discipline, strictness and reliability.
However, Douglas McGregor’s analysis of what he calls Theory X and Theory Y in the administration of government business provides the philosophical foundation for management-by-directive. Theory X and Theory Y constitute a theoretical diagnostic of organisations and systems.
McGregor’s theory evolved as a human relations theory that outlines certain underlining assumptions that managers have with regards to organisational functioning and performance.
The Weberian bureaucratic framework is founded on three basic propositions: first, management involves the deployment of people, material and money as means towards the achievement of particular economic objectives; second, that organisational objectives require the control and motivation of people; and, third, that without a strict organisational regimen, humans are usually unproductive and resistant to organisational needs.
This theory is backed by a very dim and gloomy perception of human nature which conceives of an average employee as being (a) indolent by nature, (b) lacking in ambition and motivation, (c) naturally egoistic and therefore set to work contrary to organisational requirements, (d) naturally resistant to change, especially those that would contradict his selfish desires, (e) naturally deceivable. Given these assumptions, organisational goals can only be achieved if the discerning manager employs a very strong tactic in getting his indolent employees to achieve the set targets.
McGregor’s Theory X therefore demands the path-goal theory of leadership in its four iterations: achievement-oriented leadership, directive leadership, participative leadership and supportive leadership. Leadership is perceived in hierarchical framework. And this hierarchies are the basis for the assertion of administrative authority.
The manager, for instance, stands at the zenith of that authority as the one person whose seniority enables her to monitor the administrative rules and procedures which those lower down the hierarchy must follow. This is the tradition that centralises the significance of the Weberian administrative model for many years. It is the traditional model that constitutes the core of the framework for administering government business until the emergence of the managerial revolution in public administration in the second-half of the twentieth century. Managerialism upends almost all the assumptions that defines the bureaucracy in command-and-control terms.
The managerial revolution has as its most fundamental premise the argument that market-based business management principles and the entrepreneurial culture possess the most formidable capacity for ensuring public service efficiency in ensuring democratic service delivery to the citizens. The justification for this transition is simply that, for managerialists, the Weberian bureaucratic model is much too rigid, rule-bound, cumbersome, costly, inefficient and unresponsive to the needs of the citizens as the customers of public services.
In its place, managerialism expects a government that is FAST—flatter, agile, streamlined and technology-enabled. The traditional structure of the bureaucracy, being rigid, inward-looking and founded on outdated competencies, must therefore be modernised in ways that make it more collaborative, transparent, flexible and participatory. This translates into a public service that is expected to be (a) fast-moving, intelligent, professional, information-rich, flexible, adaptable and entrepreneurial; (b) less employee-focused and rule-driven, deliver quality service; (c) performance-focused and accountable; and (d) operated by multidisciplinary team of new generation public managers and project teams.
In this managerial context, the real challenge is not what government does, but rather how it is done—the measurable means by which government business is effectively and efficiently administered to produce significant outputs and results.
To be continued tomorrow.
Prof. Olaopa is Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission and Professor of Public Administration.
