On the basis of Long's essay on administrative power and your analysis of ''The Columbia Accident,'' what specific factor can you identify that can strengthen or detract from an organization's power? Are there specific ways that administrators protect or enhance their power position? If so, how? Use the case to illustrate your views and cite example(s) from your experience.
Norton Long emphasized that power runs administration. Without power, administrators would not be able to carry out its functions properly, given that they have to observe a hierarchical setup within which power runs through. Analyzing where power would come from enables a fruitful setting for effective administration. Therefore, it is important to come up with a thorough analysis of the origins of power first for one to identify how administration works in a given system. Administrators would generally disfavor any development that tends to challenge their power because such undermines their position within the hierarchy of the system (Stillman, 2009).
Power within an administrative system flows within a hierarchy, in which case each administrator holds power specific within the given roles of their position. Subordinates within the hierarchy of an administrative system tend to have lesser powers and are therefore limited in terms of implementation processes. There is an understanding that administrators with leadership positions, otherwise known as the people on top of the hierarchy of an administrative system, have greater power to disseminate to their subordinates. In an administrative system, the heads of the legislative and executive branches of government have the strongest impact in creating policy decisions. Public policies coming from the legislative branch pass through deliberation phases, often under the scrutiny of key members. Heads of the executive branch have the final say in implementing public policies coming from the legislative branch, with the President, Prime Minister or any other figure serving as the head of government having the right to exercise veto power. Subordinates of the executive branch have the mandate to implement and ensure the effectiveness of public policies, with each of them having specific roles based on the power vested unto them by their position in the hierarchy of the administrative system they belong to (Stillman, 2009).
The importance of maintaining the hierarchy of the administrative system lies on the need to determine the kind of action required from particular public policies. If there are specific challenges against any public policy, the heads of the legislative and executive branches have the rightful role to elaborate further on the controversy. Should the challenge come to a deadlock, the judicial branch holds the mandate to impart its wisdom through legal interpretation. For the implementation phase, those at the lower parts of the executive branch hold the power to implement the public policy in question, unless certain developments coming from the legislature, judiciary or higher positions in the executive branch hinders them to do so wholly or partly (Stillman, 2009).
However, there is an understanding that the construction and implementation of public policies do not find influence from the roles designated per each part of the hierarchy of the administrative system alone. Members of the hierarchy of the administrative system practice their designated powers with the factor of human agency involved, which determines the quality of any given public policy in terms of its construction and implementation. With that comes the influence of politics in the effectiveness of a public policy. An administrator may exert his influence in changing the way public policies work, subject to the practice of his power designated within the hierarchy of the administrative system in which he belongs. The influence of an administrator may find basis from the strength of his human agency, which may provide for innovations or alterations on the public policy under implementation. Such changes may urge the legislature to propose amendments to the public policy. The executive may also introduce directives that may change the way certain implementations related to the public policy in question would proceed without necessarily deviating from the letter of the espousing law. Administrators, being human agents, may collectively influence the way certain public policies would manifest effects based on their actions. Overall, political influences, determined by human agency, may provide formidable challenges to existing formal hierarchies within an administrative system (Stillman, 2009).
Consonant to the idea of political influence as a challenge to the hierarchical practice of public administration is the problem of determining the source of power. Politics have firm basis on human agency, which could inevitably transpire from each administrator within the hierarchy of any given administrative system regardless of their designated powers. Such is the case of the groupthink that permeated the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that resulted to the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003. Groupthink, which refers to the need to achieve organizational unanimity without due regard to possible alternatives, have hindered NASA from deciding against launching Columbia despite the discovery of damage. Instead, NASA unanimously stood for launching Columbia as part of its routine operations, with the damage ultimately causing its fatal destruction and the death of all seven members of the crew. In said case, the dominant groupthink within NASA favoring the Columbia launch has caused organizational inefficiency that resulted to the disaster. Power, in this regard, came from the dominant norm of groupthink, with amenable recommendations being inadequate in terms of superseding it. Therefore, the human agency held by administrators upholding public policies, which translates to political influence, provides challenges to the formal hierarchical administrative system and the powers designated per given position, and vice-versa. In such a case, administrators get to protect and enhance their power, as granted by their position. Even for group assignments for schoolwork, the leader tends to exercise political influence by using his responsibilities to justify the subordination of his group members. Group members, in return, have the ability to influence their leader, subject to the substance of their recommendations and the attitude of the latter (Stillman, 2009).
What ideas does the reading of Mayo's Hawthorne study contain for securing worker cooperation with management in achieving organizational goals in the case of ''American Ground''? Or is it largely irrelevant to coping with the problems presented by this case? If so, why? If not, why not?
The Hawthorne study of Elton Mayo has provided managerial insights for instilling cooperation among workers, which is beneficial for fulfilling organizational goals. Mayo identified three managerial problems persistent in modern large-scale industries: scientific and technological skill applications in product manufacturing, ordering operations systematically and sustained cooperation among workers to promote teamwork. Through free conversation-type interviews conducted among workers of the Western Electric Company, Mayo effectively gathered data while promoting sustained cooperation among them. Firstly, conversation-type interviews have enabled workers to become more open in terms of expressing their emotions that could potentially affect them in their work as they eventually state their concerns in a clear manner. Through casual interviews, workers feel the freedom to release their negative emotions towards their work as they constructively answer the points needed by their interviewer in a clear manner. Secondly, casual interviews have aided workers to relate themselves peacefully with other people at work. Sustained cooperation enables greater productivity among workers without any problems related to strained relations. Thirdly, interviews held casually have enabled the building of harmonious relations of workers with co-workers and management people. Workers have developed a sense of double loyalty to both his co-workers and superiors from the management – a concept rarely prevalent in tension-filled work settings that are more prone to feature strikes. Fourthly, casual interviews with workers enable future administrators to train themselves towards effectiveness and efficiency in practicing their leadership. The three aforementioned effects of casual interviews on workers suggest that administrators must understand the welfare of their workers and their motivations on working. With that, administrators could gain greater perspectives in terms of handling workers as they stay away from the current reality of administrators ignoring the importance of sustained worker cooperation. Finally, the casual interviews held by Mayo proved effective in extracting information that are of strong objective value for managers. Management towards workers could improve with the use of casual interviews, given the formation of sustained worker cooperation. When workers begin to form peaceful working relationships with their colleagues from both the workforce and the management, administrators could develop amenable management skills that would enable them to improve such development (Stillman, 2009).
The “American Ground” case, which featured the conflict between the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the New York Fire Department (NYFD), serves as a relevant case that would benefit from the Hawthorne study conducted by Mayo. The case, which involved rescue and clearing operations at the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City destroyed by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, featured workers having difficulties in carrying out their tasks. Most of the workers come from the NYFD, and their difficulties in removing the debris and retrieving the bodies at the site have spurred managerial challenges. Most of the work conducted by the NYFD was improvisational in nature, therefore causing difficulties in terms of getting work done. Tussles have ensued between the NYFD and the NYPD, mostly because of managerial misunderstandings that mostly revolve around ignoring the plight of those from the former. With that, the importance of holding casual interviews with NYFD field workers on the site could have potentially resolved such conflicts. Understanding the factors behind motivating the workers in their tasks and the value of sustained cooperation between themselves and the management, particularly with the NYPD, could have enabled the NYFD to have greater managerial organization, given that the importance of reaching their goals to clear the site of debris and human remains. Workers at the site could have become more effective had they shared a better relationship with the NYPD. At the same time, sustained cooperation could have enabled the workers to acquire mechanisms that are more effective in performing their tasks (Stillman, 2009).
References
Stillman, R. (2009). Public administration: Concepts and cases (9th Ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin.
