Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:00:03.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civil Service and Managing Work: Some Unintended Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert T. Golembiewski
Robert T. Golembiewski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nature seldom allows us to get what we wish without paying her price. This truism is commonly illustrated by the delicate balance in animal life which often cannot be disturbed to satisfy man's wants (e.g., for fox hunting) without demanding of man in return (e.g., by increases in the rabbit population and in crop damage).

The several civil service systems in this country also illustrate this bittersweet combination of intended and unintended consequences. The argument here will not go to the extreme of one observer, in whose judgment the United States Civil Service Commission was the single greatest obstacle to the successful waging of World War II. Rather, the focus here will be upon several characteristics of our civil service systems that have as presumably unintended consequences an increase in the burdens of managing work. For the most part, the analysis of management problems will derive from the research literature dealing with behavior in organizations, a field of study presently seething with activity.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1962 , pp. 961 - 973
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fisher, John, “Let's Go Back to the Spoils System,” reproduced in part in Waldo, Dwight, ed., Ideas and Issues in Public Administration (New York, 1953), pp. 200–1Google Scholar.

2 Sayre, Wallace, “The Triumph of Technique Over Purpose,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 8 (Spring, 1948), pp. 134–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ibid., p. 134.

4 Waldo, Dwight, The Administrative State (New York, 1948), pp. 47–64 Google Scholar.

5 See my Behavior and Organization (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1962)Google ScholarPubMed, esp. chs. 1–4.

6 See my “Organizing Work: Techniques and Theories,” Advanced Management—Office Executive, Vol. 1 (June, 1962), pp. 26–31 Google Scholar.

7 Op. cit., pp. 134–35.

8 The outlines of this reorientation are drawn sharply in Stahl, O. Glenn, Public Personnel Administration (New York, 1956), pp. 577–82Google Scholar.

9 Pelz, Donald C., “Interaction and Attitudes Between Scientists and Auxiliary Staff,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4 (December, 1959), pp. 321–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Vol. 4 (March, 1960), pp. 410–25.

10 Likert, Rensis, New Patterns of Management (New York, 1961), p. 114 Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., pp. 56–57.

12 Drury, James E., The Displaced Career Executive Program (Inter-University Case Program, University of Alabama Press, 1952)Google Scholar.

13 Stahl, op. cit., p. 473.

14 Nigro, Felix, Public Personnel Administration (New York, 1959), p. 295 Google Scholar.

15 Argyris, Chris, Personality and Organization (New York, 1957), pp. 177–87Google Scholar, summarizes many relevant studies.

16 Ibid., p. 177.

17 Ibid., p. 180.

18 Givin, William, Bottom-Up Management (New York, 1949)Google Scholar.

19 The point has been amply demonstrated in experimental situations. See March, James G., “Influence Measurement in Experimental and Semi-Experimental Groups,” Sociometry, Vol. 19 (March, 1956), pp. 26–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Drucker, Peter F., The Practice of Management (New York, 1954), pp. 291–92Google Scholar.

21 The parent of this analysis may be found in Worthy, James C., Big Business and Free Men (New York, 1959), pp. 90–99 Google Scholar.

22 The point is supported by the example in Drucker, op. cit., p. 291. See also Argyris, op. cit., pp. 177–87.

23 Worthy, op. cit., pp. 92–93.

24 Haire, Mason, ed., Modern Organization Theory (New York: Wiley, 1959), pp. 273–74Google Scholar.

25 Cartwright, Dorwin and Zander, Alvin, eds., Group Dynamics (Evanston, 1953), esp. pp. 617–19Google Scholar.

26 Golembiewski, Robert T., The Small Group: An Analysis of Research Concepts and Operations (University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 202–4Google Scholar.

27 Chapple, Eliot D. and Sayles, Leonard R., The Measure of Management (New York, 1961), pp. 18–45 Google Scholar.

28 Mylander, W. H., “Management by Executive Committee,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 33 (May, 1950), pp. 51–58 Google Scholar.

29 See Whyte, William F., Man and Organization (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1959), pp. 11–16 Google Scholar.

30 Dale, Ernest, “Centralization versus Decentralization,” Advanced Management, Vol. 21 (June, 1956), p. 15 Google Scholar.

31 Bernstein, Marver, The Job of the Federal Executive (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1958), pp. 34–35 Google Scholar.

32 Hoover Commission, Report on the General Management of the Executive Branch (Washington, D. C., 1949), pp. 1, 3–4 Google Scholar.

33 As, e.g., in Morgan vs. United States, 298 U. S. 468, where the Secretary of Agriculture was rebuked for deciding a case he had not heard in person.

34 In Gaus, White, Leonard D., and Dimock, Marshall E., The Frontiers of Public Administration (University of Chicago Press, 1940), p. 91 Google Scholar.

35 Nigro, op. cit., p. 85.

36 Eitington, Julius E., “Injecting Realism into Classification,” Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 15 (March, 1952), pp. 31–35 Google Scholar.

37 Nigro, op. cit., pp. 98–99.

38 White, Leonard D., Introduction to the Study of Public Administration (New York, 1948), p. 28 Google Scholar.

39 Van Riper, Paul P., “The Senior Civil Service and the Career System,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 18 (Summer, 1958), pp. 189–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Royal Commission on the Civil Service, Introductory Factual Memorandum on the Civil Service (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1953), p. 54 Google Scholar.

41 Melton, A. W., Apparatus Tests, AAF Aviation Psychological Program, Research Report No. 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1947)Google Scholar.

42 McQuitty, L. L., Wrigley, C., and Gaier, E. L., “An Approach to Isolating Dimensions of Job Success,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 38 (1954), pp. 227–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 McCormick, E. J., Finn, R. H., and Scherps, C. D., “Patterns of Job Requirements,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 41 (1957), pp. 358–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Carter, Launer F., Haythorn, William, and Howell, Margaret, “A Further Investigation of the Criteria of Leadership,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 (1950), pp. 350–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

45 The naming of factors is not always an easy task, for any factor normally has “loadings” of several variables. Hence the sometimes exotic designations of factorial structures.

46 Golembiewski, Robert T., “Three Styles of Leadership and Their Uses,” Personnel, Vol. 38 (July-August, 1961), pp. 38–39 Google Scholar.

47 Calvin, Allen D., Hoffman, Frederick K., and Harden, Edgar L., “The Effect of Intelligence and Social Atmosphere on Group Problem-Solving Behavior,” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 45 (February, 1957), pp. 61–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Likert, op. cit., pp. 93–94.

49 Likert, op. cit., pp. 56–57.

50 Ibid., p. 45.

51 Ibid., p. 20.

52 Bernstein, op. cit., p. 76.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.