Introduction:
Public administration as an organised activity provides various services to the people and regulates the behaviour of individuals and groups in society. Consequently, public administration requires the basic organisational tool to keep the administrative process operating. As Prof. George E. Berkely says, -All administration requires an organisation of some shape, size, or kind, and all organisations carry on some measure of administrative activity.
Since much of contemporary life involves organisations, it is necessary to understand briefly what an organisation is. An organisation is essentially a group of people engaged in a coordinated and cooperative effort, working toward a common goal. To James D. Mooney, -Organisation is the form of every human association to attain a common purpose. It refers to the pattern of interrelationships established between the workers engaged in pursuing common objectives.
It is based on a network of personal relationships and group ties developed by workers. It concerns how the employees actually behave in an organisation. Gulick notes that any manager will have a finite amount of time and energy and discusses the span of control under coordination.
Also, in terms of coordination and organization, Gulick emphasizes the theory of unity of command, that each worker should only have one direct superior to avoid confusion and inefficiency. Still another theory borrowed from military organizational theory, particularly Sir Ian Hamilton and Lyndall Urwick and brought to prominence in non-military management and public administration by Gulick and Urwick, is the distinction between operational components of an organization, the do-ers and coordinating, the coordinating components of an organization who do the knowing, thinking, and planning. In the military, this is divided between “line” and “staff” functions.
Gulick gives the private-sector example of a holding company performing limited coordinating, planning, and finance functions, with subsidiary companies carrying out their work with extensive autonomy as they saw fit according to the parent company’s overall direction. Gulick states that his statement of the work of a chief executive is adapted from the functional analysis elaborated by Henri Fayol in his “Industrial and General Administration”. Indeed, Fayol’s work includes fourteen principles and five elements of management that lay the foundations of Gulick’s POSDCORB tasks of an executive.
Read Also: Henri Fayol’s Principles of Management
Historical Background of Unity of Command:
The chain of command principle is ancient, but its application to the management of organisations was only systematized in the twentieth century. Two individual French engineers and executives, Henri Fayol and the German sociologist Max Weber, contributed much to our understanding of this principle. In his book General and Industrial Management, Fayol presented what has come to be known as the fourteen management principles. These principles include the unity of command (his fourth principle) and the scalar chain (line of authority).
Fayol‘s principle of the unity of command holds that a subordinate should report to one and only one supervisor. Fayol believed this was necessary to provide the supervisor with a clear position of authority and prevent a subordinate from receiving conflicting orders. Fayol‘s scalar chain principle states that authority and responsibility flow, one level at a time, in a vertical line from the highest level in an organisation to its lowest level. This line of authority establishes an organization‘s hierarchy.
Fayol believed it was a management error to abandon the chain of command for no reason, but he also allowed for circumstances in which the chain of command might be bypassed for the company’s good. For example, Fayol suggested that communication delays might sometimes be caused by blind adherence to the chain of command and unity of command principles and proposed what he called the -gangplank, which allows communications outside the chain of command as long as superiors are made aware.
A problem associated with the chain of command occurs when a subordinate bypasses a manager in either giving information or requesting a decision. This act undermines the authority and position of the manager, who is bypassed. The managers’ morale will decline if this practice continues in a bureaucratically organised company. The urgency and frequency of these situations may mitigate the impact and inappropriateness of such contacts. With the rapidly changing environment and increasing uncertainty that organizations face in the twenty-first century, some adopt structures emphasising flexibility and quick response to change.
Weber also studied the problems inherent in large organisations as organisations grew from family structures to larger entities during the Industrial Revolution. Weber proposed the bureaucracy as a model of efficient organisation. Bureaucratic characteristics clearly define hierarchies of authority and responsibility, consistent with the chain of command principle.
Meaning of Unity of command:
Unity of command means that an employee should only receive orders from one superior. In other words, it means that no employee should be subjected to the orders of more than one superior. Thus, it stands for single boss for each person or mono-command. Unity of command is a basic principle of classical Public Administration. It means that -each subordinate should have one and only one superior, with orders flowing from and accountability flowing to that single superior. It bases itself on the old proverb that -no man can serve two masters.
This important principle is drawn from the hierarchical organisation characterized by a scalar chain running throughout the organisation. The scalar chain provides for a unified command, with one head directing the entire organisation’s activities. Thus, the scalar principle contains the concept of a unit of command.
In addition to the above meaning of unity of command is also interpreted in two other ways:
- It means that all the units of an organisation should be integrated or brought under the authority of one head like a President, a Cabinet, a Minister, a Secretary, a Chairman or some other body or officer.
- It means that the head of the organisation should be a single individual. More elaborately, it means that there should be only one person and not a body of persons at the apex of an organisation, and all lines of authority should be concentrated in his hand.
In the first sense, unity of command is incompatible with the independent or autonomous units of organisations like the public corporations or constitutional bodies in India, the independent regulatory commissions in the USA, etc.
In the second sense, it is incompatible with the Commission type or Board type of organisations like the Election Commission, the Union Public Service Commission, the University Grants Commission, the Railway Board, the Flood Control Board, etc. Hence, the abovementioned interpretation of unity of command is widely accepted.
Unity of command is one of Henri Fayol‘s 14 principles of Management. This principle states that there must be only one superior or a subordinate. That is, an employee or a worker must not have many bosses or superiors. If an employee or subordinate has to work under the influence of many bosses or superiors, it creates a confusing situation, dilemma and disorder.
This also affects the organisation’s overall efficiency, productivity, and profit and creates confusion about an employee’s accountability. Thus, according to the principle of unity of command, too many heads (bosses or superiors) must not boss or supervise the same amount of work being done by a worker or an employee. In other words, the work of a worker or the job of an employee must always be supervised by a single head.
Concept of Unity of Command:
The concept of the unity of command is essential to avoid confusion and manipulation in organisations. Duality or multiplicity of command keeps an employee under confusion and conflicting situations, for instance, ‘whom‘ to follow and ‘what‘ to follow. Further, a subordinate can also evade orders by playing off one superior against another, undermining the organisational purpose. Henry Fayol is the most important advocate of the principle of unity of command. He asserted that -should it be violated, authority is undermined, discipline is in jeopardy, order disturbed, and stability threatened.
As soon as two superiors wield their authority over the same person or department, uneasiness makes itself felt, and should the cause persist, the disorder increases, the malady takes on the appearance of an organism troubled by a foreign body, and the following consequences are to be observed; either the dual command ends in disappearance or elimination of one of the superiors and organic well-being is restored, or else the organism continues to wither away. In no case is there adaption of the social organism to dual command?
Gulick and Urwick have also supported the principle of unity of command. They believed that a man could not serve two masters. Hence, they concluded that -well-managed administrative units in the government are, almost without exception, headed by single administrators. Gullick explains the importance of this principle -any rigid adherence to the principle of unity of command may have its absurdities. But they are unimportant compared to the certainty of confusion, inefficiency and irresponsibility arising from the principle’s violation.
Many writers have opposed the concept of unity of command. Seckler-Hudson argues that the old concept of one single boss for each person is seldom found, in fact, in complex governmental situations. Many interrelationships exist outside the straight line of command, which requires working with and reporting to many persons for the purpose of orderly and effective performance. The administrator in government has many bosses, and he can neglect none of them. From one, he may receive policy orders from another, personnel; from a third, budget; from a fourth, supplies and equipment.
J.D. Millet advocates the ‘Dual Supervision‘theory in place of unity of command. He argues that the concept of unity of command needs to be reconciled with recognising that supervision of any activity may be dual-technical (professional) and administrative. These two types of supervision may be exercised by different individuals.
The former may be concerned with the professional competence in the performance of a job, while the latter may be chiefly interested in the efficient utilization of men and material resources available for the job. He concludes that it should be remembered that under no circumstance is the employee subject to conflicting commands.
Moreover, the concept of unity of command has been affected by the following two factors, which are the result of the growing size and complexity of modern organisations,
- Adopting plural-headed bodies like ‘boards‘ and ‘commissions‘ as the heads of administrative agencies as opposed to ‘bureaus‘ (headed by a single individual).
- An increasing number and the growing influence and power of staff and auxiliary agencies which specialists man.
A principle refers to a fundamental truth. It establishes cause and effect relationship between two or more variables under a given situation. They serve as a guide to thought & actions. Therefore, management principles are statements of fundamental truth based on logic that guide managerial decision-making and actions. These principles are derived:
- Based on observation and analysis, i.e., the practical experience of managers,
- By conducting experimental studies.
Read Also: Difference Between Unity of Command and Unity of Direction
Read Also: Difference Between Unity of Command and Chain of Command
Unity of Command and Decision-Making Speed:
The unity of the command structure offers a unique speed advantage for decision-making. The head of the organisation can make decisions without consultation or discussion with others, thus speeding up the decision-making process. For instance, within a single owner/manager business environment, the single owner is not responsible for communicating or discussing changes of policy to or with anyone else, providing flexibility of management and an increased ability to adjust and conform to market demands, whether by changing prices as needed or staging sales to complete with another business nearby.
Merits of Unity of Command:
The following merits of unity of command are below:
- It develops efficiency in administration.
- It conforms with the Scalar system.
- As it avoids confusion among the employees of an organisation, the work is not delayed.
- In it, every employee recognizes his immediate boss, from whom he has to receive command.
- Better Relationship: Unity of command helps to develop a clear and better relationship between superiors and subordinates.
- Unity of command results in a clear and well-organized Authority, Responsibility and Accountability between various levels of the organisation’s workforce.
- Reduces Duplication of work: It helps to reduce and/or avoid duplication of work between the various levels of the organisation’s workforce.
- Prompt or Quick Decisions: The unity of command helps managers properly make fast or quick decisions.
- Effective and Efficient Discipline: The unity of command ensures an effective and efficient discipline within an organisation.
- Better coordination and teamwork: The unity of command ensures better organisational coordination and teamwork.
- Boosts Morale and Positive Attitude: It boosts morale and generates a positive attitude among workers in the organisation.
- Higher Productivity: The unity of command leads to higher productivity of goods and services. This creates a better image or goodwill for the organisation in the market.
Supporting unity of command, Henry Fayol observes, -Should it be violated, authority is undermined, discipline is in jeopardy, order disturbed and stability threatened.
Demerits of Unity of Command:
(i) Not Universal:
The principle that ‘one man should obey one superior’ cannot be applied universally. There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, the technical experts do not come under this category. They receive and issue commands to various other officials. Millett has rightly observed. Therefore, the concept of unity of command needs to be reconciled with the recognition that supervision of any activity may be dual-technical and administrative.
Different individuals may exercise the two types of supervision. Different individuals may exercise the two types of supervision. One type may be concerned with professional competence in the performance of a job while the other is chiefly interested in efficiently utilising the resources – men and materials – available for the job.
(ii) Functional Foremanship:
Criticizing the unity of command, Prof. Tailor has recommended functional foremanship. In functional foremanship, a subordinate may accept the instructions of two different foremen, one for speed and the other for proper maintenance.
(iii) Impractical:
The traditional approach to the principle of unity of command that each individual receives orders from one and only one superior is not practicable. In modern times, due to the impact of science and technology, the number of administrative specialists has increased considerably. In such a situation, it is impractical to receive the command of only one superior.
However, there should be mechanisms to ensure that the commands of different officials do not conflict or contradict each other. In case of a conflict of command, the subordinate should be expected to obey only one man’s command. The notice of conflicting command should be given to the authorities. But if there is no command conflict, duality or multiplicity of command is not harmful. Unity of command should not be rigidly adhered to.
While the principle of unity of command is a useful guide to large-scale organisations, it is not like a mathematical formula that can be applied in every situation. The principle is, however, essential to ensure unity of direction, stability and continuity of command and control. It achieves unity of purpose in the diversity of different units and activities.
Conclusion:
It may lead us to conclude that the principle of unity of command has broken down regarding public administration. But this is certainly not so if we look a little deeper into the issue and analyse the situation thoroughly. Unity of command is not violated if an employee receives an order from two supervisors regarding different matters or aspects of matters under his charge. It is broken only if he gets orders from two different sources regarding one and the same matter. Even in the technical departments, the last work lies with the administrative chief, who has the power and authority to overrule the technical experts.
We can conclude by saying that unity of command is essential for good administration. However, there must be flexibility in applying the principle of unit of command to keep pace with changing administrative needs and situations without violating the authority of superiors.