Collegial State Administration: Design for Today?

• Date: 01 September 1981
• Author: Charles T. Goodsell
• Published date: 01 September 1981
• DOI: 10.1177/106591298103400311
• Subject Matter: Articles

COLLEGIAL

STATE

ADMINISTRATION:

DESIGN

FOR

TODAY?

CHARLES

T.

GOODSELL

Virginia

Polytechnic

Institute

and

State

University

T

IS

COMMONLY

believed

that

contemporary

public

administration

is

a

technically

more

demanding

than

ever,

and

more

expected

than

ever

to

engage

in

&dquo;rational&dquo;

behavior.

At

the

same

time,

the

political

and

social

environment

of

present-day

public

bureaucracy

seems

more

turbulent

and

conflict-ridden

than

previously,

a

setting

that

is

perhaps

perfectly

unsuited

for

advanced

technical

rationality.

What,

if

anything,

can

be

done

to

accommodate

an

increasingly

tech-

nological

task

core

and

its

increasingly

turbulent

context?

These

pages

may

be

viewed

as

an

empirically

based

attempt

to

stimulate

consideration

of

one

possible

option.

The

proposal

being

advanced

is

perhaps

unique

and

certainly

unusual

for

contemporary

public

administration

circles,

in

that

the

basic

idea

is

not

new

at

all.

No

attempt

is

even

made

to

invent

a

new

name

or

repackage

a

prior

notion.

Instead,

I

am

proposing

frankly

that

we

revive

a

very

old

concept

in

administration,

namely

the

use

of

appointed

multimember

boards

or

commissions

to

direct

bureaucratic

activity.

Such

&dquo;collegial&dquo;

administration

(Weber’s

term)

is

commonly

used

in

some

sectors

of

American

society,

such

as

economic

regulation,

public

and

higher

education,

and

corporate

business.

But

it

has

declined

drastically

in

use

and

reputation

with

respect

to

line

departments

of

state

government,

the

field

to

which

the

present

discussion

is

directed.

The

argument

herein

made

is

that

traditional

debate

on

this

subject

has

centered

on

the

wrong

issues,

and

that

meanwhile

new

conditions

have

arisen

that

justify

revival

of

the

device

at

the

present

time.

THE

TRADITIONAL

DEBATE

The

issue

of

collegial

administration

is

very

old.

Cameralist

writers

of

the

Eighteenth

Century

debated

the

merits

of

single-head

versus

multiple-

head

bodies

in

terms

of

optimal

use

of

administrative

power

by

Prussian

monarchs.

Following

Prussia’s

defeat

at

the

hands

of

Napoleon

in

1806,

internal

reforms

instituted

by

vom

Stein

included

replacement

of

collegial

councils

by

single-headed

departments.

This

organizational

design

became

known

as

the

Einheitssystem

in

European

administrative-science

circles

and

can

be

considered

a

doctrinal

cornerstone

for

contemporary

management

theory

1

In

his

sociological

analysis

a

century

later

Max

Weber

was

responding

to

this

Continental

tradition

when

he

argued

that

collegial

administration

in-

evitably

gives

way

to

&dquo;monocratic&dquo;

bureaucracy

(again,

his term)

as

the

need

grows

for

precision,

rapidity,

consistency,

responsibility,

and

discipline

in

administration.

Single-headed

leadership

more

fully

assures

these

qualities,

he

stated,

even

though

collegiality

could

provide

more

deliberative

decision

making

and

a

way

to

reconcile

divergent

views

and draw

in

the

authority

and

knowledge

of

influential

private

persons.2

2

1

A.

Dunshire, Administration:

The

Word

and

Science

(New

York:

Wiley,

1973),

pp.

62-67.

2 H.H.

Gerth

and

C.

Wright

Mills, eds.,

From

Max

Weber

(New

York:

Oxford

University

Press,

1946),

pp.

237, 238;

Talcott

Parsons,

ed.,

Max

Weber

(New

York:

The

Free

Press,

1947),

pp.

399-402.