Premium
DELEGATION: A CASE STUDY
Author(s) -
Moore B. N.
Publication year - 1968
Publication title -
australian journal of public administration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 41
eISSN - 1467-8500
pISSN - 0313-6647
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8500.1968.tb00729.x
Subject(s) - delegate , delegation , business , decentralization , delegated authority , service (business) , scope (computer science) , monopoly , public administration , public relations , law , economics , political science , traditional authority , marketing , computer science , market economy , programming language
SUMMARY1 Whether to delegate or not to delegate has been an active issue in the New South Wales Public Service since 1960. 2 There has been considerable delegation of personnel authority to department heads during the period 1960–68, and the benefits of this programme have been significant. 3 The following rules seem to govern the selection of areas ripe for further delegation:The “monopoly” rule : Where a department has a virtual monopoly over a particular occupational group in the Service, it should have authority to employ members of that group. The “rubber‐stamp” rule : Where the rate of approval to departmental submissions approaches 100 per cent in any area, delegation of authority should be considered. The “guide‐line” rule : Where the Board finds it possible to formulate guide‐lines for the making of decisions within its own office, these guide‐lines should be communicated to the departments, together with authority to make the appropriate decisions. The “no‐harm” rule : Whenever authority can be exercised in a department without breaching any general or departmental limitation, delegation should be considered.4 The following limitations to delegation of further personnel authority are seen to exist:The “size” limitation : The small size of many departments limits the scope for further delegations of authority. The “geographical” limitation : The geographical dispersion of departmental staff is a factor that limits the scope for further delegations of authority. Regional decentralization, paradoxically, often leads to centralization of personnel authority. The “uniformity” limitation : The need to achieve uniformity in the Service, from one department to another, limits the scope for further delegations of authority. The ideal of uniformity, however, has probably been over‐emphasized in the past because of the early history of the Public Service Board, and the centralized system of arbitration within which it operates. Other limitations : Factors unique to individual departments, such as historical influences and lack of competence in personnel administration, impose specific barriers to further delegations of authority.