Headquarters and Field Relationships

Headquarters and Field relationships:

The supervising or central offices usually located in the country’s capital are referred to as the headquarters. To make headquarters more genuine, the organisation is composed of many departments and ministries of the government.

Moreover, the field offices are the institutions that require approval or acceptance from the headquarters before taking any administrative actions. 

These offices are controlled, supervised, and directed by the Headquarters. In the Indian administration, the word ‘headquarters’ is written for the secretariat, whereas the term ‘field’ denotes the attached and subordinate offices.

Cruciality of the Field:

The influence of legislation or an administration can be seen by how well it is administered. Administration falls on the field agencies, and the reason is the criterion of good and satisfactory governance that relies on the proper operations of the field agencies. The field services have importance due to the emergence of the idea of the welfare state and technical advances, particularly in the areas of the growing enthusiasm of the people to have facilities at their door, increase in the regulatory activities, urging for a more significant number of employees needed at fields, and communication and transportation.

In India, out of 160 central employees in Delhi, only one works at the Headquarters while the rest are functioning in the field.

The Basis for the Formation of Field:

• Past Chronicles
•  Need of the Geography, such as Naxalite area
•  Political pressure and citizen’s involvement and their comfort
•  Administrative economy demanding the structure of field service and funds with the department.
• Kind of work that the department will handle

Categories of Relationship:

The relationship between the headquarters and the field relationship can be organised in two ways, that is:

1. Territorial or Unitary System
2. Functional or Multiple System

Territorial System

The Unitary system is also known as the territorial system. In this system, the line of command goes from the clerk to the officer-in-charge of the field station. Further, it goes from the office to the headquarters of the government of the country or state. Under the headquarters of the government, the head of the field station has the sole responsibility of their station, and plenty of section clerks of the field station are his subordinates.

The head of the station is generally referred to as the station manager. Moreover, he is responsible for all actions he or his subordinates take. All sort of communication between the station and headquarters is through him only.

For example, in a post office, many clerks presently deal with different operations, such as money orders, saving banks, parcels, etc. All the clerks first report to the office’s postmaster, followed by the postmaster, and then the regional postmaster. Eventually, they inform the Director-General.

Some Merits of the Unitary System

1. It avoids the concentration of authority in the central office, which makes it unwieldy.
2. It is highly flexible.
3. It guarantees autonomy to the field stations.

Some Demerits of the Unitary System

1. This type of system leads to the divergence of strategies and policies.
2. There is very little or no operational unity between the headquarters and the field station.
3. It is pricey.

Functional Systems:

In functional systems, the reliance changes. Stations are independent of a person or a unit. Instead, it has a collection of units organised solely for general administrative matters by the stationmaster’s authority.In this system, the line of authority is straightforward. It runs directly from the division clerk towards the head of the respective division at the headquarters. The units are branches of the related central divisions. In the multiple systems, the station’s officer-in-charge does not have any jurisdiction over the clerks working in his station. He is not answerable to ensure their regular attendance, maintain discipline, or make sitting arrangements.

Some Merits of the Multiple System:

1. Better efficiency and supervision of the units because the technical operations in the fields are under the control of central experts.
2. The central government handles all matters of public policy and public affairs.
3. It is more economical because one administration does all that each would have to do for itself. 
4. It maintains uniformity.

Some Demerits of Multiple Systems:

1. It focuses too much authority in the central office. This is a reason for poor management and unwieldiness.
2. It makes the system rigid; therefore, it does not provide sufficient autonomy to the field stations.