UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 3.7 Free with a free account
The Administrative Perspective: Designing Organizations from the Top Down
Principles of Management · Chapter 3: The Classical Era of Management ThoughtSection 3.7 · lesson 13 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Bridging Structure and People: Follett's Group Networks and Barnard's Acceptance Theory →← Time, Motion, and the Worker: The Gilbreths' Efficiency StudiesNext lesson: Bridging Structure and People: Follett's Group Networks and Barnard's Acceptance Theory →
In this lesson
Designing organizations from the top down.
- Describe administrative theory as a school of thought
- Explain its principles of organization beyond Fayol
- Compare the 5 bases of departmentalization
- Assess the approach and what replaced it
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,519 words). Read along, or search it.
The Classical Era of Management Thought
The Administrative Perspective
Scientific management zoomed in, all the way down to a single motion. Administrative theory zoomed out, to the whole organization. In this section we look at that school of thought. First, what defines it, and who contributed beyond Fayol. Second, its most lasting tool, departmentalization, the choice of how to group work. We also cover span of control, line and staff, delegation, and coordination. And finally, we test its confident claims against what later research found, and see what replaced it.
Unit of Analysis
A School Defined by What It Studies
Administrative theory is best defined not by any one list of principles, but by its unit of analysis. That unit is the whole organization, and the general work of managing it. Contrast that with scientific management, in Subchapters three point three and three point six. Taylor and the Gilbreths asked how a specific job should be performed. Administrative theorists asked how an entire organization should be designed. How should work be grouped? How should authority flow? And how should the resulting parts be coordinated into a working whole? Fayol, from Subchapter three point five, is the school's central figure. But he was not alone. Others pursued the same shared project, deriving general principles of organization for every kind of enterprise.
Other Contributors
Gulick, Urwick, Mooney and Reiley
Two pairs of writers stand out. Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, writing in nineteen thirty-seven, proposed a widely cited acronym. It is POSDCORB, a summary of an executive's core administrative functions. Planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. That elaborates the same functional territory as this course's four-function framework, from Subchapter two point one. James Mooney, writing with Alan Reiley in nineteen thirty-one, made a bolder argument. Certain organizing principles, including the scalar chain, seemed to recur across very different organizations. Businesses, armies, and the Catholic Church. They took that as evidence of something close to a universal logic of organization. Not an accident of any one industry. Hold on to that claim of universality. It is exactly what later research would challenge.
Departmentalization
5 Ways to Group the Same Work
The school's most enduring specific contribution is its analysis of departmentalization. That is the decision of how to group an organization's work into departments in the first place. The key insight is that there are several distinct bases, and each optimizes something while sacrificing something else. Grouping by function puts all of manufacturing together, and all of sales together. That builds deep expertise, but coordinating across functions toward one product or customer gets harder. Grouping by product improves coordination around each product line. But it can duplicate specialists across product lines, and weaken functional expertise. Grouping by geography improves responsiveness to local conditions, but can fragment consistency across regions. Grouping by customer tailors service to each segment, but can duplicate effort, much as product grouping does. And grouping by process improves efficiency within each stage of production. The cost is accountability. No single group owns the finished result. Subchapter seven point five develops all of this in depth.
Figure 3.7.1
One Company, 5 Ways to Slice It
Here are all five bases applied to the same fictional company. By function, you get manufacturing, sales, and finance. By product, a tools line, a fasteners line, and a coatings line. By geography, a north, a south, and a west region. By customer, retail accounts, industrial accounts, and government. And by process, the stages of cutting, assembly, and finishing. The point to notice is that the people and activities never change. Only the slicing does. Function puts manufacturing in a separate box from sales. Product puts a slice of manufacturing and a slice of sales together, under one product line.
Span and Delegation
No Magic Number, No Nominal Delegation
Administrative theorists also debated span of control, introduced in Subchapter one point one. Some early writers argued for a specific optimal number of direct reports, true in every situation. Later empirical findings complicated that search for a single universal number. The right span depends on task similarity, on dispersion, and on subordinate capability. Delegation was treated as a principle in its own right. It means assigning authority and responsibility downward, as Subchapter one point one defined it. But the theorists attached a condition. Delegation has to be real, not nominal. Picture a manager who hands over a task but still makes every decision connected to it. Or one who reverses a subordinate's decisions as a matter of routine. That manager has not actually delegated anything, whatever the org chart or job description says.
Line and Staff
Authority Versus Expertise
The school also formalized the distinction between line and staff. A line position holds direct authority over subordinates. It bears direct responsibility for the organization's primary objectives, such as production and sales. A staff position provides specialized advice and support to the line. Think of legal counsel, human resources, or financial analysis. Staff have no direct authority over line operations. This distinction creates a durable and well-documented tension. Staff specialists often know more about a given question than the line manager who actually holds the decision. Meanwhile, line managers sometimes resent advice from a role with no direct accountability for the outcome. That tension has never fully disappeared, wherever organizations keep both kinds of role. And that is exactly why the distinction still matters today.
The Central Problem
Coordination
Coordination sits at the center of administrative theory. It means aligning separately performed activities toward a shared objective. And there is a specific reason it matters so much. Specialization is what creates the need for coordination in the first place. Imagine an organization with no division of labor at all. It would need no coordination mechanism, because there would be nothing separate to reconcile. But the more finely work is divided into departments, functions, and roles, the more deliberate coordination it requires. Without that effort, the divided pieces drift apart, instead of working toward the same end. This is the same division of work as Fayol's first principle, seen from the side of its cost.
Top-Down Design
Designing From Objectives Downward
The school's organizing method followed a consistent, top-down sequence. First, determine the objectives. Second, derive the work required to achieve them. Third, group that work, using one of the departmentalization bases. Fourth, assign authority, matched to the responsibility each grouping carries. And fifth, provide coordination mechanisms to reconcile the pieces that are now separated. Notice what makes this explicitly top-down. The design flows from the organization's stated objectives, downward through the structure. It does not emerge bottom-up, from how existing individuals already happen to be working. That is clean and logical. As we will see, it also depends on objectives being clear in the first place.
Claims and Evidence
4 Principles, Tested Later
So how did these principles hold up? Take four of them. First, the claim that an optimal span of control exists, one ideal number for managers in general. The evidence was executive experience, and observation of particular organizations. Later research found the right span depends on task similarity, dispersion, and capability. Second, the claim that organizing principles are near-universal. The evidence was comparison across businesses, armies, and religious organizations. Some patterns do recur broadly. But contingency research found that fit to circumstance matters more than universal form. Third, the claim that top-down design is the correct method, again backed by executive experience. It works well in stable conditions. It is less reliable when objectives are unclear, or shifting fast. Fourth, the claim that the choice of grouping basis matters. This one has held up well. Later organizational design research confirmed and refined its trade-off logic.
What Replaced It
Same Questions, New Ways of Answering
The main criticism parallels the one already made of Fayol. The principles came from executive experience and assertion, not from controlled evidence. Several of them also contradict each other in practice. A wide span of control and close personal supervision, for instance, cannot both be maximized at once. What replaced the search for universal principles was not a rejection of the questions. It was a change in how they were answered. The contingency perspective, in Subchapter five point five, holds that the right answer depends on circumstances. And later empirical research, across Chapter seven, tested structural questions against actual data. Yet a great deal survives. Departmentalization, span of control, line and staff, delegation, and coordination are still the field's working language. And the school's questions remain exactly the ones organizational design must answer today, even where its confident answers did not hold.
Case Vignette
No Single Right Answer
Here is a composite case, constructed for instruction. A manufacturer's executive team met to reorganize, as the company grew past its original single-product structure. One executive argued for grouping by product line, because coordination for each product's launch and support would be easier. A second argued for grouping by function. That would preserve specialist expertise, and avoid duplicating engineering and sales staff across product lines. Both were right about what they were optimizing for. Grouping by product would sacrifice exactly the functional depth the second executive was protecting. Grouping by function would sacrifice exactly the product coordination the first executive wanted. And administrative theory's own principles offered no basis for declaring one objectively superior in the abstract. The team chose a functional structure, with product coordinators added across functions. Not because theory called it the one correct answer, but because it was the trade-off they could best live with. Next, Subchapter three point eight closes the chapter with Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard, who bridge to the behavioral era.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Administrative Perspective: Designing Organizations from the Top Down
What is POSDCORB in management?
What are the five bases of departmentalization?
What is the difference between line and staff positions?
Why did administrative theory's universal principles fall out of favor?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →