Centralization and decentralization in public administration

¶ … Centralization and Decentralization in Public Administration

There exists a great tension within the field of Public Administration, those that view authority has having its central purpose within a consolidated matrix vs. those who believe, quite passionately, that the interests of those who will be implementing organizational policies that will affect a wide swath of individuals should have their power equally distributed among various group members. In essence, there is a titanic struggle between those who feel power in various levels of Public Administration should be Centralized and those who argue for greater De-Centralization within Public Administration. At the core of this struggle is a battle of ideologies, of philosophies- in deed one could go as far as to assert this argument has its roots in the battle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians during the founding and shaping of the United States of America.

This battle of competing philosophies has manifested itself through the domain of Public Administration through the contention as to how to best allocate the resources of the body "politic" to ensure the most equitable allocation of resources. This has lead to the current debate between the centralization vs. decentralization camps. The premise of this analysis will be to examine the nature of this tension. The thesis and goal of this essay will be to answer the question "Is Decentralization necessarily a bad thing? Shouldn't leaders and executives delegate their authority in order to allow themselves the ability to see 'the forest through the trees'? In order to provide a rational answer or de minimus this analysis will rely on three constructs wherein this question will be examined. These constructs are:(1) the Power of Reframing;(2) Structural Framing and (3) Symbolic Framing. Each of these constructs will be used to analyze the concepts of centralization vs. decentralization of authority and power within Public Administration. Additionally, this analysis will integrate real world examples from both politics and business to contrast the impact of each philosophy.

Power of Reframing

The Power of Reframing revolves around the simple concept of being able to view issues in more than one manner (Bolman, 2008, p. 6). There are four distinct "frames" that are used to reframe the issues; these frames or constructs are: (1) Structural; (2) Human Resources; (3) Political and (4) Symbolic (Bolman, 2008, p. 7). Each of these constructs are used to view issues and proposed policies through a spectrum that allows managers and administrators to consider the various angles attributed to certain issues. Effective policy leadership mandates each of these four frames are considered from a variety of points. It is increasingly difficult within a complex organization for this task to be centralized.

If reframing is centralized this could lead to a level of "group-think" exacerbating the ability of managers and administrators to gauge reaction and impact policies. There is a plethora of analysis within the body of literature discussing how overlooking critical aspects and signals either from customers or internal management resulting in negative consequences for the organization, some with drastic implications (i.e. Enron). With respect to Enron, after the meltdown in the early part of the decade, former Enron executives dispel the management style of one of Enron's chief executives, Jeffrey Skilling (Bolman, 2008, p. 3). According to the majority of senior officials within Enron, attributed Enron's flame-out to the obscene hands-on, micromanagement style of Skilling as a crippling aspect of Enron's structure (Bolman, 2008, p. 3).

Another critical example of how centralization of authority prevents managers from seeing the broader issues can be found in Robert Nardelli's management of Home Depot. Nardelli's quick ascendency and dismissal as CEO of Home Depot demonstrates that Nardelli fell victim to the overall concept that has plagued those managers that are bent on micromanaging and being involved in the decision making process at all levels. Nardelli along with Skilling and in some respects former President Jimmy Carter were guilty of seeing an incomplete or distorted picture as a result of overlooking important details that are only visible from taking a broad analytical approach- in other words these details are lost in the minutia of daily decision making and can be seen when authority is evenly spread over a variety of groups (Bolman, 2008, p. 3)

Structural Assumptions

Structural frames are reflected in current approaches to organizational design. Formal roles and responsibility will minimize distracting personal static and maximize people's performance on the job (Bolman, 2008, p. 47). The human resource approach deals with the issue of changing people, the structural approach advocates putting the right people in the right place to maximize their effectiveness (Bolman, 2008, p. 47).

There are six fundamental assumptions underlying the structural frame. They are: (1) Organizations exist to achieve established goals; (2) Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through division of labor; (3) Suitable forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse individuals and units mesh in their ultimate objectives; (4) Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal agenda; (5) Structures must be designed to fit an organization's current circumstances and (6) Problems arise and performance diminishes when structural deficiencies exist (Bolman, 2008, p. 47). These principles form the philosophical core of the decentralization argument. Within a policy organization there will be various subdivisions and individuals more adept at certain tasks-providing them with enhanced authority and responsibility will inevitably lead to positive results.

This is a critical component of the Decentralization argument. Comparing the main premise of Centralization and its natural offspring-micromanagement. This structure deprives the organization of adequate and effective resources due to the fact these resources are centralized and consolidated within a core group of individuals or a handful of departments. Those who could make the largest and most effective impact are denied the opportunity to do so. Decentralization incorporates the main theory of the Structural Assumptions approach by calling for power and authority to be dispersed among groups, departments and individuals that have the talents to contribute the most productive use of resources to yield the most beneficial outcome for either an organization or policy position.

The Structural Approach and by association the Decentralization model have their nexus in two distinct ideological roots. The first being constructed out of the work of early industrial analysts, specifically, Fredrick W. Taylor, who in 1911 expressed a new form of management that incorporated scientific principles (Bolman, 2008, p. 48). This "scientific management" was focused on improving efficiency through division of resources across an entire organization to ensure those components more effective at certain tasks were afforded the ability to use their talents in a more appropriate manner (Bolman, 2008, p. 48).

The second root can be traced to the workings of the Sociologist Max Weber. Weber outlined a theory of organization that included a fixed division of labor, rules governing performance and segregation of official from personal goals (Bolman, 2008, p. 48). There is ample evidence throughout history where decentralization of authority and regulations have lead to increased productivity, performance and operation efficiency. One can only look at the overall performance of the U.S. economy at points in our history when the heavy hand of unnecessary government regulations was lessened, spawning rapid growth and development.

However, this does not mean there should be total decentralization, some power and authority regarding the enactment and implementation of policy must remain centralized within a core group; however an organization's optimization can be found in a power structure where authority and responsibility are shared across departments. When there is a shared goal to make an organization more effective it can logically be concluded the organization and the policy they implement will be more productive than if there were various factions with an organization or administration struggling to fulfill their own personal goals at the expense of the official.

Conclusion

The tension between Centralization and Decentralization within Public Administration can take some insights from the private sector examples espoused within this analysis. Those who purport to express the need for Centralization will harken back to the words of James Madison in Federalist Number 10 "If all men were angles government would not be necessary, however all men are not angles and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is the fear of delegated power being used for personal gain that is one of the main factors driving the Centralization argument. However, does this attitude assume the worst in people? Is it Hobesian? Certainly those who administrators seeking continued Centralization do so out of the common belief it is for the greater good.

Although it can be asserted that Decentralization focus on the greater good but focuses on motivation, cohesion and striving for the common good through the entrustment of greater amounts of responsibility and division of labor. Each of these models predicate themselves on the idea of the greater good, however their specific approaches to human nature belays their differences.