DELEGATION: A CASE STUDY

• 1 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.