Hammond, T. H. (1990). In Defence of Luther Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization. Public Administration, 68(2), 143-173.
Question: Do Luther Gulick’s ideas in ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization” offer considerably more information about the design of organizational structures than we currently know?
Methods:
In order to answer the question, the authors analyze both the essays of Luther Gulick and Herbert Simon, two specialists in public administration who debated each other in the 1940s and 1950s. The papers which are reviewed and fact-checked include Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Orgaiuzation’ (1937) and Simon’s ‘The Proverbs of Administration’ (1946). The guiding disciplines behind Simon’s arguments, sociology and psychology, are also reviewed for their impact and suitability to Simon’s views about public administration. Other works by the authors are also checked for their consistency, coherence, and credibility. In the analysis of Simon’s arguments, some of his subsequent works are analyzed. These include Administrative Behavior (1947), Models of Man (1956), and Organizations (1958).
Additionally, works that were influenced by Simon, and that defended Simon’s stand on public administration include March’s ‘Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice’ (1978), John Steinbnmer’s A Cybernetic Theory of Decision (1974), and Graham Allison’s ‘Organizational Process’ model in Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971). Also, the published works by public administration specialists that have defended the arguments of Luther Gulick are reviewed. These include the authors like Seidman and Altshuler. In addition, Thomas Hammond gives his analysis of Gulick’s essay without using the biased lens that Simon had created against Gulick’s arguments.
Findings:
The study establishes that the arguments by Gulick were not n intellectual dead-end, as suggested by Simon. As demonstrated by Hammond, a more analytical and empirical analysis of the “Notes on the Theory of Organization” contains elements discussed by later scholars like Simon as well as earlier administrative theorists. Thus, Gulick was open-minded enough to consider older, contradictory beliefs concerning public administration that deserve more attention through a keen analysis of both traditional concerns and the more profound impacts of organizing the government’s work. Also, from the review of published works that fed the debate between Gulick and Simon, it became clear that Simon had without a clear rationale, had he more significant share of influence on the public administration researchers that followed him. In addition, when Simon’s arguments are evaluated, they demonstrate self-contradicting remarks that raise questions on the criteria that Simon was declared the “winner ” of the debate.
The implications the findings have for public managers and administration:
The implications for public administrators are that they must be involved in a more in-depth investigation of the properties of organizational structures. Furthermore, in their study and practice of public administration, managers should adopt a “principles of administration” approach to studying the theory of organization. Also, managers need to consider the impacts of organizing place, persons, process, and purpose. As suggested by Gulick, managers need to consider the essence of the sequence in which certain aspects of work fit into the organizational structure. Also, Gulick’s methods of departmentalization can impact managerial and administrative success in many different ways. This factor prompts further research into Gulick’s thoughts on the impacts of different types of departmentalization. Furthermore, the article exposes the idea that there exists a profoundly entrenched research bias that goes back many years. Researchers on public administration must thus analyze the influences of public administration giants who may have diverted research and literature away from useful ideas that could be crucial to modern-day management.
.
Hammond, T. H. (1990). In Defence of Luther Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization. Public Administration, 68(2), 143-173.
Question: Do Luther Gulick’s ideas in ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization” offer considerably more information about the design of organizational structures than we currently know?
Methods:
In order to answer the question, the authors analyze both the essays of Luther Gulick and Herbert Simon, two specialists in public administration who debated each other in the 1940s and 1950s. The papers which are reviewed and fact-checked include Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Orgaiuzation’ (1937) and Simon’s ‘The Proverbs of Administration’ (1946). The guiding disciplines behind Simon’s arguments, sociology and psychology, are also reviewed for their impact and suitability to Simon’s views about public administration. Other works by the authors are also checked for their consistency, coherence, and credibility. In the analysis of Simon’s arguments, some of his subsequent works are analyzed. These include Administrative Behavior (1947), Models of Man (1956), and Organizations (1958).
Additionally, works that were influenced by Simon, and that defended Simon’s stand on public administration include March’s ‘Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice’ (1978), John Steinbnmer’s A Cybernetic Theory of Decision (1974), and Graham Allison’s ‘Organizational Process’ model in Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971). Also, the published works by public administration specialists that have defended the arguments of Luther Gulick are reviewed. These include the authors like Seidman and Altshuler. In addition, Thomas Hammond gives his analysis of Gulick’s essay without using the biased lens that Simon had created against Gulick’s arguments.
Findings:
The study establishes that the arguments by Gulick were not n intellectual dead-end, as suggested by Simon. As demonstrated by Hammond, a more analytical and empirical analysis of the “Notes on the Theory of Organization” contains elements discussed by later scholars like Simon as well as earlier administrative theorists. Thus, Gulick was open-minded enough to consider older, contradictory beliefs concerning public administration that deserve more attention through a keen analysis of both traditional concerns and the more profound impacts of organizing the government’s work. Also, from the review of published works that fed the debate between Gulick and Simon, it became clear that Simon had without a clear rationale, had he more significant share of influence on the public administration researchers that followed him. In addition, when Simon’s arguments are evaluated, they demonstrate self-contradicting remarks that raise questions on the criteria that Simon was declared the “winner ” of the debate.
The implications the findings have for public managers and administration:
The implications for public administrators are that they must be involved in a more in-depth investigation of the properties of organizational structures. Furthermore, in their study and practice of public administration, managers should adopt a “principles of administration” approach to studying the theory of organization. Also, managers need to consider the impacts of organizing place, persons, process, and purpose. As suggested by Gulick, managers need to consider the essence of the sequence in which certain aspects of work fit into the organizational structure. Also, Gulick’s methods of departmentalization can impact managerial and administrative success in many different ways. This factor prompts further research into Gulick’s thoughts on the impacts of different types of departmentalization. Furthermore, the article exposes the idea that there exists a profoundly entrenched research bias that goes back many years. Researchers on public administration must thus analyze the influences of public administration giants who may have diverted research and literature away from useful ideas that could be crucial to modern-day management.
.
Hammond, T. H. (1990). In Defence of Luther Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization. Public Administration, 68(2), 143-173.
Question: Do Luther Gulick’s ideas in ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization” offer considerably more information about the design of organizational structures than we currently know?
Methods:
In order to answer the question, the authors analyze both the essays of Luther Gulick and Herbert Simon, two specialists in public administration who debated each other in the 1940s and 1950s. The papers which are reviewed and fact-checked include Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Orgaiuzation’ (1937) and Simon’s ‘The Proverbs of Administration’ (1946). The guiding disciplines behind Simon’s arguments, sociology and psychology, are also reviewed for their impact and suitability to Simon’s views about public administration. Other works by the authors are also checked for their consistency, coherence, and credibility. In the analysis of Simon’s arguments, some of his subsequent works are analyzed. These include Administrative Behavior (1947), Models of Man (1956), and Organizations (1958).
Additionally, works that were influenced by Simon, and that defended Simon’s stand on public administration include March’s ‘Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice’ (1978), John Steinbnmer’s A Cybernetic Theory of Decision (1974), and Graham Allison’s ‘Organizational Process’ model in Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (1971). Also, the published works by public administration specialists that have defended the arguments of Luther Gulick are reviewed. These include the authors like Seidman and Altshuler. In addition, Thomas Hammond gives his analysis of Gulick’s essay without using the biased lens that Simon had created against Gulick’s arguments.
Findings:
The study establishes that the arguments by Gulick were not n intellectual dead-end, as suggested by Simon. As demonstrated by Hammond, a more analytical and empirical analysis of the “Notes on the Theory of Organization” contains elements discussed by later scholars like Simon as well as earlier administrative theorists. Thus, Gulick was open-minded enough to consider older, contradictory beliefs concerning public administration that deserve more attention through a keen analysis of both traditional concerns and the more profound impacts of organizing the government’s work. Also, from the review of published works that fed the debate between Gulick and Simon, it became clear that Simon had without a clear rationale, had he more significant share of influence on the public administration researchers that followed him. In addition, when Simon’s arguments are evaluated, they demonstrate self-contradicting remarks that raise questions on the criteria that Simon was declared the “winner ” of the debate.
The implications the findings have for public managers and administration:
The implications for public administrators are that they must be involved in a more in-depth investigation of the properties of organizational structures. Furthermore, in their study and practice of public administration, managers should adopt a “principles of administration” approach to studying the theory of organization. Also, managers need to consider the impacts of organizing place, persons, process, and purpose. As suggested by Gulick, managers need to consider the essence of the sequence in which certain aspects of work fit into the organizational structure. Also, Gulick’s methods of departmentalization can impact managerial and administrative success in many different ways. This factor prompts further research into Gulick’s thoughts on the impacts of different types of departmentalization. Furthermore, the article exposes the idea that there exists a profoundly entrenched research bias that goes back many years. Researchers on public administration must thus analyze the influences of public administration giants who may have diverted research and literature away from useful ideas that could be crucial to modern-day management.
.