POSDCORB View
This view stresses the managerial functions. Henry Fayol and
Luther Gulick, the proponents of public administration, adopted
this approach. Henry Fayol mentioned five main functions of
administration.
1. Planning (including research and forecasting),
2. Organization,
3. Command,
4. Coordination and
5. Control.
Another administrative thinker L. Urwick also supported Fayol.
Luther Gulick, of course, amplified this by coining a new word
'POSDCORB' each letter of which stands for one managerial
activity.
The POSDCORB view conforms with the common man's idea
of administration. This is because we use the term
'administrator' to denote the higher officials who direct and
supervise the subordinate officials. A'typist' or a 'clerk' is not
called an administrator. Further, as these activities are
universal, there is some convenience in studying. Instead of
studying various types of 'administration,' it would be sufficient
to study only these 'POSDCORB' activities.
It is further pointed out that if this view is accepted, the study of
administration as a subject acquires universality and a sort of
definiteness. Also, the study becomes practicable. Perhaps, it
is on account of this that those writers who started with the
wider view of the scope finally ended up with the POSDCORB
activities. No wonder, Lewis Meriam pointed out succinctly that
POSDCORB came as a 'godsend' to everyone who is engaged
in the teaching of public administration.
, Some critics, however, argue, that the POSDCORB view is not
rational and that it is defective. Let us consider these criticisms.
Firstly, neither policy formation nor public relations are
included in POSDCORB. Today, the administration has an
important role not only in the administration of policies but also
in policy formulation. When public good is the ultimate aim of
the administration, public relations -keeping the public well
informed of its activities and understanding their desires,
aspirations, and difficulties regarding these - assumes much
more importance.
That way, the POSDCORB activities constitute an incomplete
list. Secondly, these are like 'housekeeping' activities. There
are only the 'tools' for the achievement of set objectives. These
'tools' should not be mistaken for 'the end of the administration.
To consider these POSDCORB activities as the essence of
public administration is to miss the true internal idea of
administration'.
Other thinkers of the same school have attempted an
interesting elaboration of these categories to bring out their
interrelations and to deduce from them the fundamental
principles of administration. Thus Mooney and Reiley,
American authors on the theory of organization starting from
the axiom of the German theorist Louis F. Anderson, say that
every principle has its process and effect, and each of two
latter, also its principle, process, and effect, give a nine-point
square outlining the main categories of administration as
follows:
This view stresses the managerial functions. Henry Fayol and
Luther Gulick, the proponents of public administration, adopted
this approach. Henry Fayol mentioned five main functions of
administration.
1. Planning (including research and forecasting),
2. Organization,
3. Command,
4. Coordination and
5. Control.
Another administrative thinker L. Urwick also supported Fayol.
Luther Gulick, of course, amplified this by coining a new word
'POSDCORB' each letter of which stands for one managerial
activity.
The POSDCORB view conforms with the common man's idea
of administration. This is because we use the term
'administrator' to denote the higher officials who direct and
supervise the subordinate officials. A'typist' or a 'clerk' is not
called an administrator. Further, as these activities are
universal, there is some convenience in studying. Instead of
studying various types of 'administration,' it would be sufficient
to study only these 'POSDCORB' activities.
It is further pointed out that if this view is accepted, the study of
administration as a subject acquires universality and a sort of
definiteness. Also, the study becomes practicable. Perhaps, it
is on account of this that those writers who started with the
wider view of the scope finally ended up with the POSDCORB
activities. No wonder, Lewis Meriam pointed out succinctly that
POSDCORB came as a 'godsend' to everyone who is engaged
in the teaching of public administration.
, Some critics, however, argue, that the POSDCORB view is not
rational and that it is defective. Let us consider these criticisms.
Firstly, neither policy formation nor public relations are
included in POSDCORB. Today, the administration has an
important role not only in the administration of policies but also
in policy formulation. When public good is the ultimate aim of
the administration, public relations -keeping the public well
informed of its activities and understanding their desires,
aspirations, and difficulties regarding these - assumes much
more importance.
That way, the POSDCORB activities constitute an incomplete
list. Secondly, these are like 'housekeeping' activities. There
are only the 'tools' for the achievement of set objectives. These
'tools' should not be mistaken for 'the end of the administration.
To consider these POSDCORB activities as the essence of
public administration is to miss the true internal idea of
administration'.
Other thinkers of the same school have attempted an
interesting elaboration of these categories to bring out their
interrelations and to deduce from them the fundamental
principles of administration. Thus Mooney and Reiley,
American authors on the theory of organization starting from
the axiom of the German theorist Louis F. Anderson, say that
every principle has its process and effect, and each of two
latter, also its principle, process, and effect, give a nine-point
square outlining the main categories of administration as
follows:
