Reported by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) for the class (Organization and Society) of Prof. H. G. Kim at Chonnam National University, South Korea on Dec. 06, 2010.
V. A NEW ROLE FOR THEORISTS
CONCLUSION
[1] Reference: Denhardt, R. B. (2011). Theories of Public Organization (6th Edition). Boston, MA 02210, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 205-216
SUMMARY[1]
(pages 208-216)
I.
(INTRODUCTION)
II.
(THEORIES AND THEORY BUILDING)
III. TOWARD THEORIES OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
The author of this book, Robert B. Denhardt expresses his
experiences as an administrator in this particular chapter. He reiterated the
importance of democratic responsibility for him to carry out his functions
effectively. And in order to solve administrative problems, the response should
be communicative and consensus-seeking. It means that there is a need to
discuss the problem to those people who are directly involved so as to have a
better solution to the problem.
A. Connecting Values and Actions
Denhardt’s concern for responsibility and concern for change are influenced by his commitment to democratic processes and procedures. To act in accord with democratic processes of equity and participation, the managers must have high degree of personal security as well as a firm understanding of where they stand and what they are about. Each one must have a very personal kind of theory.
To connect the value commitments we hold and the actions we take in public organizations suggests that we need not only greater precision but also greater flexibility in the frameworks through which we act. This is the limitation of past public administration concepts in public organizations. George Frederickson (1991) suggests that a theory of the public in public administration must incorporate several dimensions of effective and responsible democratic governance. First, such a theory should be concerned not with individuals or groups but with the notion of the public interest, especially as this idea is defined in constitutional terms. Second, the notion of public in public administration must reflect “the virtuous citizen,” informed and involved in the work of polity. Third, a theory of the public must incorporate the notion of responsiveness, even to individuals and groups that do not powerfully express their own interests. Finally, the administrator must be benevolent – meaning, charitable.
A. Connecting Values and Actions
Denhardt’s concern for responsibility and concern for change are influenced by his commitment to democratic processes and procedures. To act in accord with democratic processes of equity and participation, the managers must have high degree of personal security as well as a firm understanding of where they stand and what they are about. Each one must have a very personal kind of theory.
To connect the value commitments we hold and the actions we take in public organizations suggests that we need not only greater precision but also greater flexibility in the frameworks through which we act. This is the limitation of past public administration concepts in public organizations. George Frederickson (1991) suggests that a theory of the public in public administration must incorporate several dimensions of effective and responsible democratic governance. First, such a theory should be concerned not with individuals or groups but with the notion of the public interest, especially as this idea is defined in constitutional terms. Second, the notion of public in public administration must reflect “the virtuous citizen,” informed and involved in the work of polity. Third, a theory of the public must incorporate the notion of responsiveness, even to individuals and groups that do not powerfully express their own interests. Finally, the administrator must be benevolent – meaning, charitable.
B. Managing Change in Pursuit
of Public Values
In public administration
as a discipline, it is now possible to develop such coherence in the study of
public organizations by centering on those in public organizations as managing
change in pursuit of publicly defined societal values. Such a definition
suggests an integration of the perspectives provided by political science and
organization analysis (as well as those of other disciplines that contribute to
the study) by acknowledging the importance of change processes in
organizational contexts and the responsibility of managers to deal effectively
with such processes. At the same time, it suggests the important role of those
in public organizations in influencing public life and their responsibility to
manage such an impact in a way consistent with democratic standards.
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL AND
PERSONAL LEARNING
Administrators need extraordinary flexibility in the way they
approach organizational questions: they need to be able to change, to adapt, to
learn. Unfortunately, existing approaches to theory building tend to restrict
an administrator’s options rather than enhance them. Table 8.1 below outlines
the implications of various approaches to public organizations in terms of
three central organizational processes: ways of knowing, ways of deciding, and
ways of acting. Administrators must constantly seek information about the
world, make decisions based on their understanding of the world, and take
actions based on those decisions. In other words, continuous learning is a key
tool for a successful administrator.
Table 8.1 Three Models of Administration Viewed in Terms of Three
Organizational Processes
|
|
Rational Model | Interpretive Model | Critical Model |
| Positive social science | Interpretive theory, phenomenology | Critical social theory | |
| -Ways of knowing | -Control | -Understanding | -Emancipation |
| -Ways of deciding | -Rational decision-making processes | -Emotive-intuitive | -Value-critical |
| -Ways of acting | -Instrumental action | -Expressive action | -Educative action (praxis) |
In the ways of knowing
approach, the rational model of administration employs the techniques of
positive social science in seeking causal explanations based on the objective
observation of human behavior. The interpretive model seeks to provide an
understanding of the meanings that individuals bring to organizational
activities. For the critical model, it seeks to uncover those patterns of
belief or ideology that inhibit our fullest development either as individuals
or groups in a society. Whereas the rational model seeks knowledge in order to
control, the interpretive model seeks understanding on which communication can
be built, and the critical model seeks emancipation from social constraints
that limit our growth and development.
In the ways of deciding approach,
the rational model places considerable emphasis on rational or cognitive
processes – based on objective analysis of the data at hand. The interpretive
model recognizes that such objectivity should be made base on human emotions or
intuitions. For the critical model, it seeks an integration of these approaches
through a rational analysis of the circumstances.
In the ways of acting
approach, the rational model gives emphasis on instrumental behaviors that
contribute to meeting organizational objectives. The interpretive model seeks
to express actions that permit us to reveal our normative commitments and to
work with others to develop a greater sense of interpersonal understanding. In
the critical model, it suggests an educative approach to organizational life
that would prove enabling rather than constricting to human action – in other
words, praxis. Praxis implies that as we acquire knowledge about our
circumstances and as we view that knowledge in a critical manner, we are
compelled to pursue more effective communication and consequently greater
autonomy and responsibility. According to Denhardt, it is administrative praxis
that practitioners as theories must guide their theory building and their
actions.
V. A NEW ROLE FOR THEORISTS
Denhardt emphasize the new role of practitioners as theorists
because of his role as an administrator. Theorists should not spend all their
time and energy working out supposedly causal relationships that may or may not
be of importance in the real world. Theorists need to direct their attention to
actual problems, perhaps the most pressing of which is the problem of
understanding how public organizations can work to the benefit of a democratic
society.
Academic researchers must examine complicated and detailed
questions, gather evidence, and must have roundtable discussions before any
impact is felt on the world of practice. Practitioners do not want theorists
and academicians to be exactly like them or to see the world just as they see
it. They want academicians and theorists to have a broader view or at least to
see the world from another viewpoint.
CONCLUSION
Both practitioners and theorists must
continually learn so that all will recognize their mutual responsibility for
the fullest and best expression of our democratic values. This is to give
certain solutions to the disparaging situation of public organizations that are
now facing a crisis of legitimacy. Administrators and theorists should develop
approaches that allow people to see practice as it is and to see practice in
perspective. Theory does not simply reflect life; it also projects life towards
the future. In anticipating the future, we must consider both facts and values.
The future demands that we make choices, that we constantly change and adapt to
new circumstances. In short, the future demands that we learn.
From Waldo and Barnard, we learned that
intelligence and compassion are required in public organizations. Waldo, the
proponent of intelligence, worked for the pursuit of a theory of democratic
administration. Barnard, the proponent of compassion, argued for an
understanding of change not merely in terms of control but also in terms of
communication and consensus. But today’s situation is different, it seems that
the language of productivity and efficiency prevail more than the language of
democracy and concern. Waldo and Barnard thought that the best way to solve
this dilemma is to enhance the moral integrity of a few influential managers.
Such an effort, in which theory and practice would be as closely integrated as
learning and action, would require not only that practitioners think as
theorists, and vice versa, but also that all recognize their mutual
responsibility for the fullest and best expression of our democratic values.
[1] Reference: Denhardt, R. B. (2011). Theories of Public Organization (6th Edition). Boston, MA 02210, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 205-216
No comments:
Post a Comment