Book Review Essays

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, PHENOMENOLOGY, AND ETHICS: STRANGE BEDFELLOWS? Harold F. Gortner and Jeremy F. Plant, George Mason University

Terry L. Cooper The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role (Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1982) 175 pp.; ISBN 0-8046-9292-0 $17.50.

Robert B. Denhardt In the Shadow of Organization (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1981) 157 pp.; ISBN 0-7006-0210-0 $17.50.

Michael M. Harmon Action Theory for Public Administration (New York: Longman, Inc., 1981) 194 pp.; ISBN 0-582-28254-3 $22.50.

John A. Rohr Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values (New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1978) 292 pp.; ISBN 0-8247-6756-X $20.50.

The Issue The unfolding of generational change in an academic discipline is an

interesting process to observe. In the past few years, there have been signs of a major shift in emphasis in the field of Public Administration as a younger generation of scholars assumes a position of dominance, replacing an older group whose formative experience was involvement in the positive state of the New Deal, World War II, and i t s immediate aftermath. The mission of the Waldo, Simon, Mosher, Rourke, and Redford generation was to make sense of an expansive government that found l i t t le utility in the retention of principles such as "value-free administration" and "the politics- administration dichotomy." While the outlook of this generation was hardly monolithic-witness the exchange between Waldo and Simon in 1952-it was grounded in a general acceptance of PA as a set of practical questions of governance and professional maturation in the democratic American setting. A final outburst of creativity in the late 1960s and early 1970s produced a number of books that still find their way into college class- rooms' but le f t the future of the discipline in doubt. These were books that attempted to make sense of a lifetime of experience with and in ad- ministration, not to set the tone for future research of a conceptual or theoretical nature.

In the 1970s Public Administration seemed to be prospering: The external signs were vital, measured by such indicators as marketability of the educational programs of the field, acceptance of Public Administration as a primary teaching field, and experimentation with a variety of ap- proaches to organizing i t s academic side. Beneath the surface, however, a profound disquietude among younger scholars was impelling them to re- consider the intellectual bases of the field. Public Administration was, despite the efforts of Simon and the criticisms of Dahl, making l i t t l e or no progress in applying standard social science methods to i t s own disc- plinary development. Positivism was having l i t t l e impact on the way we

795

Book Review Essays

govern ourselves or on our agenda of research. The practical side of the field retained a bag of technical tools and tricks (scientific management, principles of organizing, etc.) whose intellectual grounding had been dis- credited. Normative questions were handled in a manner that can be called charming, eclectic, and unsystematic. Certainly the approaches to the field were atheoretical, with the exception of Simon (who by now had ceased to view PA as his primary or even likely audience). While an emphasis on American values and democratic standards permitted the beginnings of historical method, l i t t le effort was made to tap the great tradition of Western social theory. Added to the disquietude in the discipline was the malaise extant in the larger environment within which public administra- tors worked-the American political system with i t s self-delusions, i t s in- ability to operationalize humane and democratic values, and the inade- quacy of leadership.

As social science's window into the world of actual governmental operations, Public Administration presented a challenge of immense propor- tions to a younger generation. It offered the hope of a medium through which reforms in the system of governance might be pursued. As a synthe- tic (or at least eclectic) collection of subfields of specialization, Public Administration was open to all sorts of new ideas and concepts; yet as an underdeveloped discipline, it offered l i t t le intellectual stimulation from i t s own literature, and showed l i t t le self-awareness of i t s formative history and development.

The New Approach This brief foray into Public Administration in the postwar era is a

prelude to our major observation: A new generation has arrived to assume at least partial leadership of the field, and the dominating problem of Public Administration, in their mind, is the tension inherent in the rela- tionship of individual to organization. Perhaps more significant than the orientation of the approach is i t s parhos: The world of bureaucracy is Seen as one that robs life of i t s meaning, prevents creative activity, separates us from our fellows, and restricts values to those that are utilitarian and functionaL2 Striking also are the methodologies chosen to provide the basis of the new generation's administrative theory. The common thread seems to be the rejection of the positivist current of the social sciences in favor of exploring the subjectivist elements of critical sociology, pheno- menology, psychoanalysis, and interpretive theory. By bringing to the stew of Public Administration the heretofore unstudied contributions of Husserl, Berger, Jung, Horchheimer, Marcuse e t al., the aridity of the field may in time be lessened. For a field that traditionally values prac- ticality and application of i t s concepts to the practice of administration, the high standards of scholarship set by the antipositivists is refreshing. For a field that in the early 1970s considered uncritical politicization (the "New PA") the only way out of the inhumaneness of i t s classical con- struct, subjectivists essays show the rich tradition of Central European scholarship that offers more solid intellectual grounding for the construc- tion of not only a new, but a richer, field of PA.

796

Book Review E m ys

In a developmental sense, these books (represented by Denhardt and Harmon in this review essay) represent a second stage in the reorganiza- tion of the field of PA. The first stage was set in the 1970s. with the reali- zation of the generational difference in the abortive New PA movement. The current stage is the tentative setting forth of the New PA's intellectual foundation, shown now to be based on scholarship and not just affectual or political sentiment. The tone of this stage is predictable: The authors are keenly aware that they are agents of change attacking a discipline that they feel has stagnated for many years. Freshness of approach, enthusiasm, unqualified acceptance of newlydiscovered sources of insights make this strain of PA literature hardly recognizable as part of the field of the late 1960s.

As in earlier examples of youthful exuberance, weaknesses remain, helping to set the agenda for continued research and reflection. We will consider the flaws in the books in this review that represent this new ap- proach and return to a general statement of ways in which the subjecti- vist treatment can be expanded, refined, and adapted for the PA audience.

Robert Denhardt's In rhe Shadow of Organization is perhaps the premier example of the new subjectivist scholarship in PA. Denhardt's approach i s scholarly, and it is noteworthy in two respects-the broadness of the search (as evidenced by his useful and highly readable bibliographic essay) and the balance between reflective detachment and reverence he brings to the discussion of subjectivist thought. The medium of presenta- tion is an essay, a t times a bibliographical one, at times one that focuses on his appreciation of the failures of modern organizational life, and a t other times as a prophetic call to renounce the logic of bureaucracy in the name of higher values.

Denhardt presents concise yet carefully reasoned discussions of the importance of phenomenology, Jungian psychology, critical sociology, and post-Freudian psychoanalysis to life in organizations. He is perhaps too quick to condemn existing thought in Public Administration by, first equating Herbert Simon's Adminisrrarive Behavior3 (and the second edition, for some unexplained reason) as coterminous with "classical" public admin- istrative theory, and second, overstating Public Administration's under- standing of bureaucracy as a particular manifestation of organization logic. His argument goes as follows: Man lives in a world in which perceptions, beliefs and actions are circumscribed by the ethic of organization. Of course, organization equates to "bureaucracy," which has as i t s objectives efficiency, rationality, and consistency of production (of whatever good or service is related to a particular organization). The ethic of organization is only cognizant of instrumental/productive values, and none of the other human beliefs and values. In order to develop a new ethic for individuals in organizations, it is necessary to utilize a Freudian/Marxist interpretation of the world that culminates in a phenomenological philosophy. Such a new view of the world and of organizations will free man from organization (i.e., bureaucracy) and make organization the servant, instead of master, again.

797

Book Review Essays

The above argument is well presented by Denhardt, but extreme. Granted, Denhardt may present the argument in an "extreme" form in order to make the strongest case possible for his stand; however, that only emphasizes the problems with the stance. Phenomenologists raise some interesting points that need to be reiterated regularly: (1) Rationality is a means applied by bureaucratic organizations to achieve societal ends. Societal ends are not, need not, and cannot be always rationally deduced. That i s precisely why politics exists; (2) Individuals should maintain their uniqueness and organizations should not destroy this most human of characteristics. Perhaps phenomenology (to put the matter in Denhardt's own Hegelian terms) is an inevitable antitheses to behaviorism, which is equally oversold by i t s most ardent followers in the social sciences. How ever, Denhardt in this case, and phenomenologists in general, seem to be obsessed with the impact of a single bureaucratic pathology on man. He is guilty of an 'overstatement of the impact of the quest for rationality on bureaucratic members. The over-emphasis on rationality on the part of the "organization" (which gets reified as a living, purposeful entity) becomes the universal and total experience for a l l organizations and organization members (p. 68). The acceptance of this one problem as the core of organi- zational experience creates a model that is unrealistic. The emphasis on rationality ignores the wealth of knowledge about, and experience in organizations that goes far beyond this single concept. We have a rich tapestry or mosaic in the field of organization theory but phenomenologists recognize and discuss only one color or theme in the picture. Thus we have in phenomenological writings on organization a "model" that creates a distortion in understanding equal to the worst distortions generated by the rationalists they attack.

Examples of the distortions created by the unidimensional nature of the phenomenological approach appear throughout Denhardt's book, but let us briefly note three of them. The discussion of Herbert Simon's theories (Chapter 2) is apparently based on a belief that Simon sees the "pure model" of rational decision making which he develops as a "good model." Instead, if we may be allowed to put words in the mouth of a Nobel Lau- reate, it would seem to be fair to argue that Simon feels we could move much further toward the pure model before exhausting its utility. The second statement is a far cry from the first, and if the more moderate (albeit strong) interpretation of Simon's work is accepted, the validity of Denhardt's exogesis becomes tenuous if not unsupportable.

A second example of the problems created by the unidimensional distortion of phenomenology is related to the problem of maintaining individual identity and values in the organization. Transcendence of the system (p. 131) and the "clearest expression of our passions" (p. 7) are two of the goals of this new way of understanding organization. Both of these goals are stated in Hegelian terms: The organization is seen as an institution imprisoning, controlling, and dehumanizing the individual, and the goal of the individual must be to achieve the antithesis-transcendence and free- dom from control. A touch of Hobbes might help to remind us of the

798

Book Review Essays

possibility that individual and social atrocities have occurred in the name of transcendence and the idealists' passions. A balance is necessary in such areas; extremes almost always lead to catastrophe.

Finally, any hope of being able to deal with these issues through discussion is dashed when we discover (appropriately, in the heart of the book-p. 72) that any of us who disagree are so deluded by the ideology supporting that system that we fail to see our own domination and think we act freely. If we do not agree with phenomenology we are deluded by our environment. We have not even made the choice to be deluded. Such posi- tions are unassailable by logic.

Thus, while Denhardt presents a thorough argument (based on the ideas of many of the fathers of phenomenology) describing how this school believes the world should be viewed and how we should look a t organiza- tions, and making abundantly clear the logic behind the movement, he also exemplifies in his argument some of the most important weaknesses of the philosophy. These problems weaken the attempts by subjectivists to apply their theory to the real world-an attempt that i s usually referred to as "action theory." Action theory has been applied primarily in two areas: organization development, where the focus has been on "freeing the in- dividual from bureaucratic restraints"; and ethics, where an attempt has been made to apply phenomenology in giving guidance to public admin- istrators facing ethical dilemmas.

A good example of the second use of action theory is Michael Har- mon's book, Action Theory for Public Administration. Harmon's work is an ambitious effort to bring conscious theory formation into the critique of traditional Public Administration. Harmon adopts a style and organiza- tion for the book that is aimed a t the elevation of action theory to the level of a practical plan of conduct for practicing administrators to use in their day-to-day activit ies. Harmon i s explicitly antipositivist in his orientation, and yet retains the rigor of the social scientist by accepting the "face-to- face encounter" as a universalistic unity of analysis. Even though Harmon's intent i s serious paradigm construction, his enthusiasm for his approach i s infectious. It is a true believer's book, with the strengths and limitations that go with i t s unabashed acceptance of action theory. Regrettably, the whole-in this case the logic that links the various elements of Harmon's paradigm and make it seem integrated to the reader (summarized in pp. 4- 714s more convincing than his exposition of some of the elements that make it up. His use of "social justice" as the logical extension of "mutu- ality" (which, in turn, is the normative premise deriving from the face-to- face relation between active-social selves) and the requirement that "con- sensus" be the decision rule by which institutions operate creates a complex system of logic that is both hard to understand and defend, but Harmon's attempt a t doing so is well worth pursuing to i t s end.

Harmon's scholarship is impressive and yet understated, perhaps opening him to criticism as one who has not accounted fully for his in- tellectual antecedents. One finds Harmon's treatment of Weber, for ex- ample, unsatisfying. Weber is not portrayed as an historical figure, and in

799

Book Review Essays

some cases Weber's direct contribution-as in his discussion of responsi- bility-would have strengthened Harmon's analysis. (This is a charge that can often be leveled against phenomenologists in that they appear to approach public administration in an ahistorical way when dealing with scholars other than those on whom they depend for intellectual support.) By briefly looking a t two additional books dealing with the ethics of Public Administration we can begin to better understand the weakness of the subjectivist approach to the field and to see how subjectivism can add immensely to our understanding of the pressures faced by the practitioner as s h e attempts to apply theory in the real world.

John Rohr, in his book entitled Ethics for Bureaucrats, attempts to move public administrative ethics from the shallow, negative, limiting ap- proach that has existed in the past to a robust, positive, proactive discipline that will help practitioners to make the hard decisions that include value- laden ethical factors. By introducing the concept of "regime values" ("the values of that political entity that was brought into being by the ratification of the Constitution that created the present American republic"-p. 59), Rohr begins to develop a set of guidelines that can be used by public admin- istrators as they face the unique and often subjective situations that make up the real political/administrative world. Thus, Rohr accepts the basic contention that public administrators operate in a subjective environment and must function as individuals even though they are in a bureaucracy; however, he also argues that there are guidelines and rules that can help to cope with that world.

The major complaint that one has against Rohr's argument is that he stops short of establishing a properly sophisticated set of guidelines for the practitioner, because he uses only constitutional cases brought before the Supreme Court as the basis for his analysis. (It can also be argued that the study of Constitutionalhegime values may be as difficult as the study of political philosophy, which Rohr says is too complex for the pragmatic and time-conscious public administrator. However, the only answer to such a debate must be that all methods of understanding the environment in which public administrators operate are complex and timeconsuming and we must accept those costs.) Single-factor approaches are too limited.

Terry Cooper, in The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role, comes the closest of any of the current crop of authors to dealing with the subject of ethics in the sophisticated way that develops the mosaic mentioned early in this essay. Cooper recog nizes the subjective nature of public administration and yet also argues that there are a variety of components that can be studied and understood, in the traditional meaning of these terms as used by social scientists, as a basis for developing a model for public administrators faced with ethical dilemmas. Cooper draws from both the traditional literature of PA and the ideas that have emerged during the last two decades as he develops his theory of "the responsible administrator," and recognizing the diff i- culty of applying generalized theoretical constructs in the real world, he then presents cases that help to emphasize the open-endedness with which

800

Book Review Essays

the subject of public administration ethics must be approached. Here is an example of the way that the insights of the subjectivists can be used to add richness to our mosaic-to the understanding of public administration in all of i t s fascinating complexity. For this reason, and also because it i s a well- written book, Terry Cooper has made a significant contribution to the study of Public Administration and the field’s ethics.

Conclusion Beyond the value of exposing PA to a new and troubling current of

thought, what is the future of subjectivist theory in the development of PA? As a practical/professional field, PA represents a special challenge for theorists of this sort. The political control and accountability of bureau- cracy presuppose some regularity, objectivity, and respect for rules and instrumental values. Can we accept a minimum of organizational con- structs while affirming the values of the action paradigm?

The history of critical Western social thought points to the division of society into two social groups, the “outsider” capable of standing apart from the dehumanizing tendencies of bureaucracy and ideology, and the “functionary” caught up in processes that are reified and beyond individual control. Praxis (either the Aristotelian or Marxian concept) provides one way of reconciling creativity with action, as does the responsible politics of Weberian liberalism. Yet the archetypical critic of twentieth century life is the outsider: pariah, rebel, freethinker.. Can we find a way to make action theory appeal to the utilitarianism and practicality of managers and administrators? Can we summon up the political courage and leader- ship to bring bureaucratization, not just bureaucracies, under reason and control? Is the benchmark of our theory the happiness and salvation of individuals in the bureaucratic world, or the Weberian goal of finding effective means of using bureaucracy to help society reach higher standards of community? Can both goals be achieved simultaneously?

Theory building is a necessary and laudable step in the direction Public Administration should follow if it wishes to address the key social issues of the times. Action/subjectivist theory is a start, but one would hope that the new generation of theorists will reject the temptation to impose an orthodoxy based on the critical approach. Historical research in Public Administration is also needed; not a historicism that shows the progress embedded in our administrative rationalization, but an objective amassing of facts that enable us to understand the choices and alternatives that the field of study and practice has encountered as it has changed over the decades. Just as the phenomenological approach should be carefully developed, others should examine the continued research of Simon into the links of cognition and organization theory. Public Administration’s openness to various disciplines and approaches to government is i t s trump card. Professors Hamon and Denhardt have each in his own manner helped to remove one of the obstacles to Public Administration’s development by making us aware of the shallowness of i t s disciplinary heritage among the social and behavioral sciences, and i t s resulting inability to find state- ments of value both for scholars and for practitioners. Professors Rohr and

80 1

Book Review Essays

Cooper help to point us in directions that our new understanding can take. A "logic of moderation," which welcomes the new insights from diverse fields, applies them whenever possible, and yet accepts none of them as definitive, can help us better to understand the field of Public Adminis- tration in which we study and operate, to maintain i t s vi tal i ty and excite- ment, and to understand the values and calculations that we must use in maintaining our ethical balance and the core of our essential identity as individuals.

FOOTNOTES

Examples of these still-valuable books are: Frederick Mosher, Democracy and the Public Service (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968); and Harold Seidman, Politics, Position, and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).

For an even stronger statement of this argument, see: Ralph P. Humrnel, The Bureaucratic €xxperience, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982). The appeal only to research that agrees with Hurnmel's views, and the rhetorical language, makes this book a prime example of what might be called"thefallacy of overrepresentation," which may be compared to the "logic of moderation" referred to later in this essay.

Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making in Administrative Organization, 2nd ed. (New York: Free Press, 1957).

802