iii. To improve research in organization

iv. To attain social goals

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Different Views:

According to Gullick and Urwick, Fayol, Willoughby and others “there are some general principles which can be taken as more or less proven truths.”

Simon held that principles are nothing but proverbs of administration.

L.D. White felt that they are only working rules with wide experience seem to have validated.

Different Principles:

Some of the important principles of organization are, 1. Hierarchy, 2. Span of Control, 3. Unity of Command, 4. Integration and Disintegration

1. HIERARCHY: As a Principle of Organization

Hierarchy has been a hallmark of all organizations in modern age. According to L.D. White “Hierarchy consists in the universal application of the superior- subordinate relationship through a number of levels of responsibility reaching from the top to the bottom of structure.” It means the control of higher over the lower. Mooney also calls it a “Scalar Principle of Organisation.”

Chief Features:

Features of hierarchy are

Firstly, exhibit division of administration into units and sub-units.

Secondly, pyramidal structure with wide base, tapering towards the top

Thirdly, flow of command and authority from top to bottom.

Merits:

Advantages of Hierarchy are

1. Replaces chaos by order and consensus.

2. Provides channel of communication.

3. Makes clear cut division of authority and responsibility.

4. Promotes specialization and division of labour.

5. Facilitates smooth delegation of authority.

Demerits:

Disadvantage of Hierarchy are

1. Creates rigidity and formalism not sensitive to dynamic aspect.

2. Plagued by Rep-tapism.

3. Ill feelings of Superior and subordinates.

2. Span of Control: As a Principle of Organization:

Span of control is a necessary corollary to the principle of Hierarchy. It simply means the number of subordinates that an administrator can personally direct.

According to Dimock, “the span of control is the number and range of direct, habitual communication contacts between the chief executive of an enterprise and his fellow officers.” However, there is no unanimity among the scholars as regards the length of the span or the number of subordinates an individual can direct.

Different Views:

For Urvey—Five

Hamilton—Six

J.C. worthy—Twenty

Dale—Sixteen

Graicunas did geometrical calculations to find the appropriate number of subordinates. He gave the formula in (2n- l+n-1) where n refers to the supervisor. To him, the ideal number is six.

The recent studies points out that there cannot be clear cut rule governing the span of control. In fact, organization and its structure, personality of supervisor and his function have crucial bearing in this respect.

The revolution in the realm of science and technology and new communication and media networks has facilitated the greater span of control.

Similarly, new methods of techniques of persuasion, bargaining, threat of penalty are increasingly being used. The growths of managerial sciences have also facilitated this trend.

3. Unity of Command: As a Principle of Organization:

The principle of unity of command is a tool to underline everyone’s responsibility in the organization. It addresses the issue of confusion and conflict by clearly outlining the command system.

Pfiffner and Presthus hold that “The concept of unity of command requires that every member of an organisation should report to one and only one leader.” Fayol points out that the principle of unity of command means that “an employee in the organization should receive orders from one superior only.”

Different Views:

Henri Fayol is the staunch advocate of the principle of unity of command. A violation of the principle results in uneasiness in the organization. The principle of dual control cannot be effective. If things are done otherwise, either the dual control is removed or the organization suffers.

F.W. Taylor preferred the principle of dual or multiple supervision. He favored a worker’s supervision by eight persons.

Contemporary Reality:

The reality of duality and multiplicity command is often found in operation. Seckler and Hudson point out that “…the old concept of one single boss for each person is seldom found…the administrator in government has many bosses and he can neglect none of them. From one he may receive policy orders; from another, personnel; from third, budget; from the fourth, supplies and equipments.”

Perhaps the best view is summed up by Herbert Simon. Though, he recognized the need of dual supervision, he favored unity of common. For, it would resolve the conflict arising out of duality.

The contemporary realities are in favour of multiplicity of common. Its best example is the office of collector. This need not threaten the organization as long as a worker does not receive dual or multiple commands on the same subject.

4. Integration and Disintegration: As a Principle of Organization

Integration means unification of different parts. An integrated administrative system is one where a single person wields all executive authority. On the other hand, a disintegrated administrative system is marked by distribution of executive authority.

Contemporary Reality:

Administrative system of all shades exhibits the characteristics of both; integration and disintegration. The difference between the two is of degree rather than of kind. While India offers a good example of integrated system, United States has a disintegrated administrative system.

Merits:

However, the integrated system has certain advantages that are summed up by Willoughby

1. Correlates various services into one.

2. Provides effective administration.

3. Makes authority and responsibility clear.

4. Helps in achieving cooperation among those working in the same field.

5. Helps in eliminating duplication of efforts.

6. Facilitates standardization of all administrative processes.

7. Furnishes means by which conflicts of jurisdiction may be avoided or adjusted.

Growth of administration together with continued stress on administrative machinery demands unified efforts. For, independent agencies, it created, may be more interested in catering to vested interest, the aspect of performance and reforms.