NOTES ON THE THEORY OF ORGANIZATION(LUTHER GULICK)
SUMMARY
I. THE DIVISION OF WORK
Luther Gulick considers division of
work as the foundation of the organization and the reason to form it.
Other compelling reasons of work division are the following:
a. Human nature – Men differ in nature, capacity and skill, and gain greatly in dexterity by specialization;
b. Time – The same man cannot be at two places at the same time; and
c. Space
– The range of knowledge and skill is so great that a man cannot within
his life-span know more than a small fraction of it.
To
illustrate further, a shoe factory having 1,000 men working on
shoe-making have to do these procedures: leather cutting, eyelets
stamping, sewing the tops, sewing the soles, nailing the
heels, inserting the laces, and packing the shoes. If each man will do
all the procedures alone, there will be 500 pairs of shoes to be
produced in one day. But if the men will be divided to work on each
procedure, the number of production will be twice as many in a day. This
is because it makes possible the better utilization of the varying
skills and aptitudes of the different workmen and encourages the
development of specialization. It also eliminates the time that is lost
when a workman turns from a knife, to a punch, to a needle and awl, to a
hammer, and moves from table to bench, to anvil to stool.
The introduction of machinery
accentuates the division of work. Specialized skills are developed not
only in connection with machines and tools but also on the nature of
materials handled (e.g. wood). They also arise in activities which
center in a complicated series of interrelated concepts, principles, and
techniques. These are most clearly recognized in the professions
involving application of scientific knowledge like engineering,
medicine, chemistry, law, ministry, teaching, and other fields.
THE LIMITS OF DIVISION – there are three clear limitations in which the division of labor cannot to advantage go:
a. The
volume of work involve in man-hours. This is about the working hours of
a worker in an organization whether part-time or full-time.
b. The
technology and custom at a given time and place. In a church for
example, custody and cleaning is by custom the work of the sexton.
c. The
subdivision of work must not pass beyond physical division into organic
division. In the case of a cow, you cannot let front half of the body
to be in the pasture grazing and the other half in the barn being
milked.
However, there is an element of
reasoning in a circle that will test whether an activity is organic or
not and whether it is divisible or not.
THE WHOLE AND THE PARTS
It is axiomatic that the whole is
equal to the sum of its parts. In dividing up any “whole”, be certain
that every part, including unseen elements and relationships, is
accounted for. An illustration in building a house could be done better
through the presence of an architect who will make the plan so that
division of labor is properly disseminated to the workers. In this way,
each skilled worker could know what to do and when to do it. It will
also reduce spoilage of materials and the time spent in building the
house will be reduced. Letting only one man to do all the work will just
be a menace.
The more the work is subdivided, the
greater is the need of overall supervision and co-ordination.
Co-ordination must be won by intelligent, vigorous, persistent and
organized effort.
II. THE COORDINATION OF WORK - Coordination of work can be achieved in two ways:
1. By
organization – by interrelating the subdivisions of work by allotting
them to men who are placed in a structure of authority, so that the work
may be co-ordinated by orders of superiors to subordinates, reaching
from top to the bottom of the entire enterprise.
2. By
dominance of an idea – this requires the development of intelligent
singleness of purpose in the minds and wills of those who are working
together as a group, so that each worker will of his own accord fit his
task into the whole with skill and enthusiasm.
These two principles of coordination
should both be utilized to be effective. Size and time are the great
limiting factors in the development of co-ordination. The question of
coordination must be approached with different emphasis in small and in
large enterprises; in simple and in complex situations; in stable and in
new or changing organizations.
COORDINATION THROUGH ORGANIZATION
Organization as a way of
co-ordination requires the establishment of authority with an objective
of enterprise is translated into reality through the combined efforts of
many specialists, each working in his own field at a particular time
and space. There is a need to establish a single executive authority in
the organization. Here are some steps in building up between the
executive at the center and the subdivisions of work on the periphery:
1. Define
the job to be done, such as the furnishing of pure water to all of the
people and industries within a given area at the lowest possible cost;
2. Provide a director to see that the objective is realized;
3. Determine
the nature and number of individualized and specialized work units into
which the job will have to be divided based on the organization’s size
and status of technological and social development at a given time; and
4. Establish and perfect the structure of authority between the director and the ultimate work subdivisions.
The fourth step is the central
concern of the theory of organization. It is the function of the
organization to enable the director to co-ordinate and energize all of
the sub-divisions of work so that the major objective may be achieved
efficiently.
THE SPAN OF CONTROL
The span of control depends on the
element of diversification of function, element of time, and element of
space. Based on previous research studies, the chief executive of an
organization can deal with only a few immediate subordinates. The number
of subordinates is determined by the nature of the work, the nature of
the executive, and the size and function of the organization.
ONE MASTER
“A man cannot serve two masters” is
considered a theological argument because it was already accepted as a
principle of human relation in everyday life. In administration, the
principle of “unity of command” will prove that a workman subject to
order from several superiors will be confused, inefficient, and
irresponsible; but a workman subject to orders from one superior may be
methodical, efficient, and responsible. Unity of command refers to those
who are commanded, not to those who issue the commands.
TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY
One efficient concept for this is
the principle of homogeneity (similarity). The group must be unified by
the work they perform, the processes they utilize, and should have the
same purpose. In single unit work divisions which are non-homogeneous in
work, in technology, or in purpose will encounter danger of friction
and inefficiency. In the same manner, a unit based on a given
specialization cannot be given technical direction by a layman.
CAVEMUS EXPERTUM
This means that technical experts,
sometimes, assume knowledge and authority in fields where they have no
competence. Professionals consider themselves as having the profound
sense of omniscience but they have their limitations. The true place of
experts is “on tap, not on top.” The essential validity of democracy
rests upon this philosophy, the common man is the final judge of what is
good for him. Efficiency makes life of a man richer and safer. That
efficiency will be secured more through the use of technical specialists
to establish control but not to do supervisory control. A government
which ignores the conditions of efficiency cannot expect to achieve
efficiency.
III. ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS
ORGANIZATION UP OR DOWN?
In any practical situation, the problem of organization must be approached from both top (system of subdividing the enterprise under the chief executive) and bottom
(system of combining individual units into aggregates). In planning the
first subdivisions under the chief executive, the principle of the
limitation of the span of control must apply. In building up the first
aggregates of specialized functions, the principle of homogeneity must
apply. This process is illustrated by the reorganization plan of the
City of New York through the Charter Commission of 1934 with the help of
the author. The plan was to reduce the number of departments from 60 to
25 with three or four assistant mayors to organize and rationalize the
executive function as such that it may be more adequate in a complicated
situation.
ORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE
The work of the executive is POSDCORB.
Planning – working out in
broad outline the things that need to be done and the methods for doing
them to accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise;
Organizing – establishment of
the formal structure of authority through which the work subdivisions
are arranged, define, and coordinated for the defined objective;
Staffing – the whole personnel function of bringing in and training the staff and maintaining favorable conditions of work;
Directing – continuous task
of making decisions and embodying them in specific and general orders
and instructions and serving as the leader of the enterprise;
Co-ordinating – all important duty of interrelating the various parts of the work;
Reporting – keeping the executive informed as to what is going on through records, research, and inspection;
Budgeting – this is in the form of fiscal planning, accounting and control.
If these seven elements may be
accepted as the major duties of the chief executive, it follows that
they may be separately organized as subdivisions of the executive. The
need for such division depends entirely on the size and complexity of
the enterprise. In large enterprises, if the chief executive is unable
to do all the work, one or more parts of the POSDCORB may be
suborganized
