Public istration Unit-24 Unity Of Command 3k1k5y

UNFF 24 ILIIWTY OF COMMAND 24h 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 24.9 24.10 24.22 24.12

Objectives

Introduction Meaning lrnportance Unity of Command in Practice Factors Effecting Unity of Command Exceptions to the Principle Arguments in Favour of Unity of Command Arguments Against Unity of Command Let Us Sum Up Key Words Some Useful Books Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

After studying this unit you shodld be able to: @ explain the meaning and importance of the principle of the Unity of Command understand how the principle woiks in practice as well as the exceptions to the principle; and

* discuss the merits .and demerits of the principle. -

2 4 1 INTRODUCTION In earlier units you have studied two important concepts of organisation viz., hierarchy and span of contr~l.In this unit you would study an equally important concept -unity of command. You have secn earlier that organisationsizre structured hierarchically and the relationship between superiors and subordinates are clearly laid down. In such orsanisations one finds vertical differentiation of work. It is axiomatic that in such organisations the subordinates receive orders from their immediate superiors. Unity of command which is compfeme~ltaryto hierarchy ernphaslses this. But as the modern organisations are very comgliex and due to reasons of specialisation it would be very difficult to receive both technical and general orders and supervision only from one immediate superior, But any violation of this hasic nonn goes against the concept of unity of command. In this'Unir you would study the meaning and importance of the concept, exceptions in practice and the paobfeinsin its operation,

24.2 MEANING One of the important problems of P~lblicistration is to secure cooperationaand team work so that people in organisation do not work at crosspurposcs. This is ensured through unity of command wherein authority for decision making and to issue instructions is clearly located in the organisational hierarchy at different levels. Unity of command implies that in organisations, employees should rcceive orders only from one superior. According to Henri Fayol, an ardent advocate of this principle, it means that 'an employee shauld receive orders from one superior-only'. Similarly Pfiffnerand Presthus observed that the concept requires 'that any member of an organisation should report to one and only onc leader'. This will protect the employee from the evils of contradictory commaads. If a person receives orders from more than one superior officer in an organisation, there is a possibility of conflicting orders. This creates confusion in the employees' mind about what to follow and whorn to follow. With the result an employee becomes ineffective. Role clarity and gaal clarity are necessarv for

i

'I

employees to be effective in an organisation. Duality and/or multiplicity of command leads to lack of role clarity and goal clarity. Therefore, unity of command becomes importa~ltfor the employees to be effective in organisations.

Let us see how unity of command is important in an organisation. If an employee receives orders from more than one superior officer, there is scope for confusion and conflict rather than clarity of purpose. In such a situation, an employee finds it difficult to pexfol-m his job with a clarity of purpose. As we have seen earlier duality and/or multiplicity of corrnmand keeps an employee in a dilemma about 'whom' to follow and 'what' to fo!lo\s. This is one possible deficiency, when there is no unity of command in an orgnraisation. Another possibility is that an employee with manugulative skills rnay avoid his work by using one superior against the other. In this plocess such an employee plays with his supcriors and thus undermines the purpose of an organisation. Absence of unity of command leads to either confusion o r gives room for manipulation in organisations. Receiving two contradictory commarlds may result in inefficie116~ and may even lead to organisational paralysis. Both these things are not in the interest of an organisation. The concept of unity of command is, thus, important to avoid these pitfalls and problems in organisations.

24.4 UNITY OF COMMANPRACTICE DN The next question is whether unity of command is practical in real organisational life. Let i ~ examine s this point with illustrations. A district collector is the head of all departments and functional activities like agriculture, animal husbandry, cooperation, law and order, education, medical and health services and a host of other departments at district level. If district istration is taken as an organisation,.ail the employees in a galaxy of departments have to take their orders directly from the district collector only. But in practice, they take their orders from their departmental heads and also from the district collector. The heads of the departments take their orders from their superior in the state istration and also from the district collector. Hence, the unity of command is difficult in practice.

Similarly in industrial organisntions, there are practical difficulties for a single person to give orders directly to all those below him in the hierarchy. Because, employees work with and take orders from general as well as technical superiors at different levels in the organisaiton. Thus, either in the case of district istration or in an industrial organisation, an employee receives orders from more than one superior. As long as there is no conflict in the orders the employees d o not face any problem. What is more important is the unity part than the command part. The unity part refers to homogeneityin an organisation's purpose. The conilnand part refers to superiors or generalists and technical experts giving orders to an employee. As long as there is no conflict with the unity part of an organisation's purpose, the number of people giving commands or orders becomes secondary. In case there is confusion or conflict in the orders, an employee has to bring it to the notice of the superiors and resolve the conflfct.

.--

---

24.5 FACTORS EFFECTING UNITY OF COMMAND '

As you are aware the organisations are increasing both in of size and complexity. With the result the staff aljd auxiliary agenczies manned by specialists are increasing in number and their power and influence is growing substaritially. These agencies have started giving instructions of different types, viz., istrative, technical, legal, etc., directly to the officials of the executive agencies. This is seriously undermining the principle of unity of command. An employee is placed in a dilemma as to whom t o f ~ l l o wwhat , t o follow and when to follow This is quite a baffling situation. Conversely,

Unity of Command

Concepts in org~isrttion-I

this gives rise to a situation where an employee enjoys n ~ o r discretion e and powers with more and more people issuing him orders. A person with manipulative skills can play with the purpose of an organisation. How to check such tendencies? 'Though, an employee receives commands from different superiors, his work is evaluated by a single superior in the organisation. Hence, the comnland lies in the superior officer, who evaluates his subordinates' performance. Thus the superior with powers of performance appraisal holds the key to unity of command.

24.6 EXCEPTIONS TO THB PRINCIPLES Theoretically the principle of unity of command appears unassailable. But in practice there are many exceptions in view of the growth and complexity of modern organisations. There are situations whcre the employees are under the technical control of one superior officer and istrative control of anothcr superior officer. This is true of all technical departmentslike medical and health, agriculture, etc. In such cases, it is almost impossible to avoid receiving orders from more than one superior.

F.W. Taylor, the father of scientific management movement, rejected the principle of unity of command. In its place he substituted functional direction and supervision which is popularly termed as "functional foremanship". In the ultimate analysis thc real . unity of command lies in the person who evaluates the performance of an individual1 individuals in an organisation. Thus the power to evaluate one's perforn~anceis the single largest factor effecting unity o f commar~din our organisation. For example in an industrial organisation an employee works with a project team o r a group of people with different technical functions, but, his work evaluation is done by the personnel manager. Similarly, in state istration, an employee, say, in comn~ercialtaxes department receives orders from the local body regarding collection of entertainment tax. But his work evaluation isdone by the commercial taxes department. This IS based on the assumption that a worker can benefit if he gets specialised supervision on each of his functions from the experts. Accordingly, Taylor had recommended eight supervisors or foremen for each worker. Each one of the eight supervisors givespecial directions to the workers in their functional area. Thus the eight supervisors are (1) Gang Boss; (2) Speed Boss; (3) Inspector; (4) ~ e ~ aBOSS; i r (5) Order of work arid route clerk; (6) Instruction card clerk; (7) Time and cost clerk; and (8) Shop floor disciplinarian. The first four of these supervisors work in the Eactory and issue directions and commands in their particular functional area. The latter four are planning bosses issuing instructions. Taylor believed that multiplicity of command ensures division of labour and facilitates specialisation. As no individual can be an expert in all the specialised fields, multiplicity of commands contributes to expert supervision. o r adopted in Public istration. Thus, we have This innovative idea of ~ a ~ lwas different technical experts side by side with the general s in present day Public istration. They both exercise supervision over the subordinates. But . Millet has noted that there is need for reconciliation betwen the two. Technical supervision should be concerned with Ijrofessional competence in the performance of a job and t h e istrative supervision with efficient utilisation of the human, material and other resources.

Check Your Progress 1 Note: i) Use the space below for your answers. ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the unit. i

1 What do you understand by unity of command?.

.............

Unity of Cammsnd

2 What is the importance of unity of command in Public istration?

3 What are the exceptions to the principle of unity of command?

.

.

.................................................................................................... . ...................................................................................................... -.. '4 ~ h is'functional. & supervision? How does it violate unity of command?

............. ..............................................................................

o.,...,..... !;

.........I

24.7 ARGUMENTS IN FAVO.UR,OF UNITY OF COMMAND The advocates of the concept argue that this concept exists and it works too, According to them, thoughmore than one superior issues larders to an employee, thece is a unity in the direction of these commands. According to Seckler Hudson, 'Yrorn one he may receive policy orders, from another personncl, i!rom a third budget, from a fourth 'supplies and equipments". As long as there is no conflict in these commands and orders, the principle of unity of command stands good.

,

Another importarlt feature is that the technical experts who issue orders are only suggesters and helpen to an employee. An employee has to ultimately follow the orders of the immediate superior, in case there are conflicting orders. This again s the view that there is unity of command that exists in organisatiotls. In certain organisations like the armed forces and intelligent agencies there is more unity of command when compared to other o~ganisatilons.That means unity of comnnand is a necessary feature in certaip kinds of organisations.

th-I

Dimock and Dimock have noted that in organisations someone nwst be a boss, multiple direction is a confused directiod, and clear lines of relationshipsand authority are .'essential for proper cooperation'. Otherwise, they argue, that the signals are not clear, wires get crossed, a proper flow of comnaunication throughout the prograrnrne is lacking and all elements necessary for the performance of a unified task remain scattered. Explaining the importance sfthis concept GuQickovserves that any rigid adherence to the principle of unity of command ,nay have its absurdities. But they are unimportant incomparison to,tfic certainty of confusion, inefficiency and irresponsibility which arise from the violation of the principle. Thus the significance of the prir~ciplelies in building a structure of coordination in organisatiorls. The other advantages of unity of command are: absence of conflict in instructions; exercise of effective supervision over the employees; and clear fixation of responsiblIity. Henri Fayol warned against the dingers if the principle is viplated in practise. Me wrote that "should it be violated, authority is undeimined, disciGli6eis in jeopardy, ordkidisturbed and stability threatened". If two persons exefcise a&t&i'ity over the same person, be further observed, uneasinless makes itself"felt anddisorder increases.

,

--

,

.

24.8 ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNITY OF COMMAND

.

The principle of unity of command implies rfiat an employee should receive orders and instructions from only one superior. But it poses several difficulties in actual implementation in real istrative situations. The principle is criticised by many, Seckler Hudson, for example, observed that in h. complex governmental situations the concept of one single boss for each person is seldom relevant in practice. According to the author many interrelationships exist outside the straight line of c ~ m m a n dwhich require working with and reporting to many for purposes of effective and orderly performance:Seckler Hudson argues that the istration in government has many bosse? and he can neglect none of them. Unity OT command, like other priticiples, is more a theoretical proposition than a practical idea in organisations. This princi~lahardly has any relevance to committees, commissions and autonomous organisations. Moreover, in organisations like research laboratories, thk principle will be counter productive. In a fast changing society, with technological innovations and change such concepts, have hardly any relevance. In Development istration,one has. to work with different technical as well as gtneralist functionaries by taking orders and instructions from both. yence, concepts like one man, one boss leads to istrative resistance in development istration. As John D. Millet,observcs: the concept of unity of command needs to be reconciled with a recognition that supervision of any activity may be dual technical and also istrative, The two types of supervision may be exercised by different individa~als~ One type may be concerned with professional competence in the performance of a jhb, while the other is chiefly interested in the efficient utilisation of the resources men and materials - available far the job. Even a classicist like Luther Gulick recognised that any rigid adherence to the principle of unity of command w{uld lead to absurd'itics.

-

-

f,

I

Check Your Progress 2 Note: L) Use the, space below foi your answers. ii) check yobr answers with those given at the end of the unit. 1 What factors affect unity of connmand?

C

unity of Command

I

2 Explain the factors in favour of unity of command.

................................................................................................... 3 biscuss the factors against unity of command.

24.9 LET US SUM UP .

As long as there is no conflict and confusion, there is no danger if an employee receives ordefs from more than one superior. In case there is confusion or conflict in orders, an employee has to bring it to the notice of his superiors. In the ultimate analysis it appears that the istrative head or the senior officer having powers of istrative. supervision holds the key to ensure that unity exists in the issue of commands.

Axiomatic: Self evident truth Performance Appraisal: Assessing the capabilities of a person in of the contribution towards the achievement of organisational goals Unassailable: That which cannot be attacked or questioned.

24.11 SOME USEFUL BOOKS Avasthi A and Maheshwari S.R. 1985. Public istration (14th ed); Lakshmi Narain Agarwal: Agra. Dimock Marshal Edward and DimockGladys Ogden, 1975. Public istration (Third Ed); Oxford &.IBH Publishing Co. New Delhi, 1

Cuncts in

organisatinn-I

,

Fayol, Henry, 1957. General and Industrial Management; lssac Pitman: London. Gulick Luther & Urwick Lyndall (Eds), 1937. Papers on the Science of istration; Public istration Service: New York. Pfiffner John M & Sherwood Frank M, 1968. istrative Organisation; PrentjceHall of India: New Delhi. Seckler-Hudson, C, 1957. Organisation and Management: Tlieory and Practice; The American University Press: Washington D.C. Sharma M.P., 1983. Public istrution in Theory and Practice (14th ed); Kitab Mahal: Allahabad. Simon Herbert, 1957. Adnzinistrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision Mnking Process in istrative Organuation; The Free Press: New York. Taylor, Frederick W, 1947. Scientific Management; Harper, New York.

24.12 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISES Check Your Progress 1 1 See Sec. 24.2. 2 See Sec. 24.3 3 See Sec. 24.5 4 See Sec. 24.6 8

-

Check Your Progress 2 1 See Sec. 24.6 2 See Sec. 24.7 3 See Sec. 24.8

-