The Administration of the National Coal Board
| Author | D. W. Kelly |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1953.tb01751.x |
| Date | 01 March 1953 |
| Published date | 01 March 1953 |
The
Administration
of
the
National
Coal
Board
By D.
W.
KELLY
blr.
Kelly
is
engaged upon a study
of
the administration
of
the coal
industry
for
a
Ph.D.
at the Universiry College
of
Wales, Aberystwytlz.
THE POPULAR CRITICISMS
ROM
its inception, the National Coal Board’s administration has been
F
subjected to prolonged and bitter criticism. The criticisms which have
been made are many and varied, but it is possible to distinguish five main
lines of attack. Briefly, they are as follows
:
(1)
That there is excessive
“
functionalism
”
within the organisation.
The majority of critics refer to
“
functionalism
”
in its
“
vertical
”
aspect, i.e., that a structure having functional or specialist departments
makes for the by-passing of operational management; fewer refer to
the
“
horizontal
”
aspect-what Sir Charles Kenold has termed the
“
adviser
”
or
‘‘
commissar
”
di1emma.l
(2) That the organisation is over-centralised. The following
comment from
The
Economist
of the 20th September,
1917,
is typical
of many
:
“
There are too many reports
of
excessive interference in
local management, of conflicting policies being pursued
by
different
departments of the Board, of technicians wasting time on unnecessary
administration,
of
demands for sheaves
of
reports and estimates of
expenditure, i.e., too many complaints of the characteristic
sins
of
bureaucracy, for there to be much doubt that control at th? centre is
too tight and that initiative at the periphery is being snnthered by
over-organisation at the centre.”
(3)
That the Divisions are a superfluous element in the structure.
(4)
That the structure makes
for
remoteness between management
and men, resulting in poor human relations in the industry.
It
has
been claimed that th2 present set-up makes everything too remote.
As
Lord Hawke has said: “The miner exchanged
the
devil he knew
for the board he did not know
;
and the
the devil.”?
(5) That the mine manager does not
with the responsibilities he has to bear.
CONSIDERATION
OF
THE
Functionalism
-
board was Cuther away than
have authority commensurate
CRITICISMS
It
is true that with a functional form of organisation, undesirable practices
may develop. Critics of
‘‘
functionalism
”
concentrate mainly on the by-
passing of operational management. Are the critics on firm ground, however,
when they stress the
prevalence
of
the theoretically possible dangers of
I
To continue reading
Request your trial