Science of Administration PODSCORB

Papers on the Science of Administration: POSDCORB
In essence, POSDCORB, which denotes the typical administrative process, is used in reference to planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting (Espy and Guy, 2017). The acronym was originally suggested and developed by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick. While planning has got to do with the formulation of a broad outline of the various objectives that ought to be accomplished and the diverse approaches to be adopted in this endeavor, organizing largely relates to “the establishment of the formal structure of authority through which work subdivisions are arranged, defined and co-ordinated for the defined objective” (Gulick and Urwick, 2004, p. 13). On the other hand, as the authors further point out, staffing involves the recruitment of staff, the development of their capabilities, as well as the maintenance of working conditions that are favorable for the accomplishment of set objectives.
Next, we have directing, which the authors term as the ongoing decision making task that seeks to clearly define instructions and orders – with the leader playing the guiding function. While coordinating has got to do with the development as well as sustenance of connections between various tasks, reporting involves “keeping those to whom the executive is responsible informed as to what is going on, which thus includes keeping himself and his subordinates informed through records, research, and inspection” (Gulick and Urwick, 2004, p. 13). Lastly, we have budgeting, which according to Gulick and Urwick (2004) involves undertakings such as accounting and fiscal planning.
In seeking to advance this particular topic, the authors were largely seeking to highlight the key roles of the chief executive (Meeks, 2015). It is important to note that in an increasingly complex world, the chief executive is inundated with multiple duties and obligations – some of which are urgent and important for the seamless performance of the system. In essence, the chief executive may not be expected to handle all matters that require his attention. This is where delegation comes in. On this front, therefore, the chief executive is left to handle only the selected roles that, as Gulick and Urwick (2004) point out, are the “functional elements of the work of the chief executive”(13). As a matter of fact, the authors refer to these roles as the executive’s subdivisions.
One of the limitations of this approach to the study of public administration is its inherent rigidity. This is to say that administrative duties and roles can be firmly fitted under the highlighted approaches. In larger governmental units, this may not be the case. In an ideal situation, as envisioned by Gulick and Urwick, the Civil Service Commission and the National Resource Committees could be deemed as subdivisions of the executive in relation to staffing and planning respectively. It is, however, important to note that policy formulation as well as implementation is not referenced in this particular approach despite being critical administrative undertakings of the chief executive (the president) in reference to public administration. It would, therefore, be fair to conclude that there is need for this framework to have a wider perspective. Secondly, it should also be noted that POSDCORB largely ignores a wide range of administrative challenges common in public administration. This is to say that its perspective is too probabilistic, as opposed to realistic. In that regard, therefore, the model may not function as intended as it is not cognizant of the fact that all public agencies cannot be run using a rigid set of principles or formulae. This is more so the case given that each administrative unit is likely to have its own peculiar characteristics and differentiating factors.


References
Espy, L.D. & Guy, M.E. (2017). Maybe it is Rocket Science: How The Martian Reflects Gulick's “Notes on the Theory of Organization.” Administrative Theory and Praxis, 39(3), 82-96.
Gulick, L. & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (2004). Papers on the Science of Administration. New York, NY: Routledge
Meeks, M. (2015). Strategic Management and the Disparate Duties of the CEO. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 39-44.