What Is Philosophy of Administration?

Author(s): Jong S. Jun

Source: Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1993), pp. 46-51
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611054
Accessed: 27-01-2016 03:57 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Theory & Praxis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 What Is Philosophy of Administration?

Jong S. Jun
California State University, Hayward

The idea of a philosophyof administrationis difficultto convey to those students of public

who have notstudiedphilosophy.Althoughphilosophical ideasseem tobe abstract,theyare
administration
not always recondite, as is often suspected. The best way to explain an administration student what
philosophy is, is to consider some common concerns inadministration. From time to time administrators
discuss matters which are of serious concern to them. Many use the word philosophy when they express
their views, saying, for example, "My philosophy of management is to get things done as efficiently as we
can" or "My philosophy is to let people participate in the decision-making process." These assertions are
philosophizing expressions of a person's relationships with co-workers or with the manager of the
organization that employs him or her. Sometimes matters of serious concern are discussed and the word
philosophy is not used: "What am Idoing here?" "Why am I feeling much stress?" "What is the meaning of
these routine activities that I perform everyday?" These queries are existential questions about oneself.

In fact, philosophy is not at all distant from the daily problems of all of us: students, academics, and
administrators, students are not only concerned with their future careers, but also wish to understand the
complex social world of which they will be part. The academics have the responsibility to teach their
students not only the technical tools of managing the administrative organizations, but also the ways of
are concerned with ethics,
uncovering hidden aspects of administrative phenomena. The administrators who
those of their co-workers, those of theirorganizations, and theirown, are philosophizing theirwork situations
and critically reflecting on the action to be taken. Anyone who raises significant questions concerning
administration and people is opening himself or herself to philosophical inquirywith others.

To some inpublic administration, philosophical thinking is considered of no practical value, but to

others it offers a foundation for critically reflecting on repetitive activities and habits of everyday
organizational life. Those who use philosophical inquiry do not seek technical answers to administrative
normative
questions, but rather seek to clarify complex issues from a conceptual point of view and suggest
answers. Because normative answers are often derived from an analysis of abstract ideas and concepts,
they are often not easily comprehended by students of public administration. A philosophical argument is,
however, no more a feeble form of discourse than is a technical or a functional argument.

Philosophical thinking is often viewed as a hindrance to administrative efficiency. When

administrators are so much concerned with issues of efficiency and productivity, however, they tend to be
in recent years,
trapped by their inability to think beyond the established mental framework. For example,
the current budget crisis faced by most state and local governments in the United States has forced public
administrators to become very reactive in their problem solving. The poor national economy and the budget
crises have caused a reduction in benefits for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled, a reduction in the
maintenance of the infrastructure, layoffs,and much else. As a result, the citizens and clients of government
the future of the United States. In
agencies criticize our political leaders for their lack of vision regarding
the candidates in 1992, U.S. voters raised the question, What is the candidate's vision
selecting presidential
for renewing the economy? This question posed by U.S. voters is a profound philosophical one.

46

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Ways of Philosophizing

The philsophy of administration is concerned with the study of conceptual issues in public
administration. Better understanding of conceptual issues will not only contribute to theoretical progress,
but also improve the foundations of knowledge and the understanding of our institutions and problems that
involve human values. Our willingness tomove beyond traditional theoretical thinking requires philosophical
arguments and dialogue among those who are interested in changing our field of study.

began in 1887,when Woodrow Wilson

Philosophical inquiryinthe fieldof public administration
advocated the study of administration as a scientific endeavor. Since that time, different administrative
philosophies have been developed, ranging from the scientific management theory of Frederick W. Taylor
(1911) to the executive functions of Chester Barnard (I938), from the democracy and pluralistic politics of
Charles Undblom (I965) to the administrative state of Dwight Waldo (1948), from the bureaucratic theory of
behaviorofHerbertSimon (I945) to thepoliticaleconomyofVincent
MaxWeber (I947) to theadministrative
Ostrom (I973). All these scholarly contributions throughout the history of American public administration
have engaged in the philosophical analysis of administration. To a great extent, they reflect the functionalist
and positivist epistemology, largely emphasizing either the importance of hierarchy, efficiency, and functional
coordination in administration or the pluralistic politics of democratic administration or the prediction of
human behavior. Itwas not until the late 1960s that this intellectual orientation was challenged by alternative
ways of philosophizing inthe field of public administration. This orientation isoften known as the new public
administration (Marini, 1971).

Since the late 1960s, a few books (Harmon, 1981;Denhardt, 1981; Hummel, I977; Jun, I986) and
numerous articles have discussed the differentways of philosophizing the study of administration. They
introduce the interpretive,phenomenological, critical theory, and dialectical approaches to the understanding
of the human side of public administration. Although the ideas are grounded in political philosophy, are
stimulating, and are change-oriented, because they lack functional and structural solutions to the practical
problems of everyday administration, the alternative perspectives introduced are not always appreciated by
students of public administration. Practitioners and academics who are accustomed to the functionalist
perspective look for functional and positivistic solutions that can demonstrate the causal relationship
between goals and product, functional control and efficiency, variable analysis and behavioral prediction,
organizational arangements and service delivery, group politics and satisfying decisions, and so on. At
times, functionalists' solutions are standardized, impersonal, rationalized, lifeless, and instrumental.
Epistemologically speaking, the interpretive and dialectical views oppose the positivistic, or deterministic,
view of administration. Rather they argue that some causal arguments could be made after studying hidden
dimensions of administration that are often influenced by an administration's culture and itspeople's ideas
and experiences. To summarize the differentways of philosophizing administration, we offer three basic
modes of approaching public administration: I) the functionalist and positivistic approach, 2) the interpretive
approach, and 3) the dialectical approach.

The functionalist approach has been a prevalent mode of philosophizing public administration ever
since the publication ofWoodrow Wilson's article entitled "The Study of Administration" (I887). Itproceeds
from the assumption that organizational efficiency and productivity can be achieved through the application
of scientific method and a set of management principles, such as budget control, planning, systems analysis,
the efficient allocation of human resources, and, recently, total quality management. The functionalists put
their emphasis on the structural and functional coordination among administrative units but also on the
organizational adaptation to its environment. The decision-making process carried out within hierarchical
relationships.

The functionalist way of philosophizing also assumes that because people are by nature rational and
self-interested, human motivations and behaviors are predictable and can be empirically explained by testing
a set of hypotheses and variable relationships. Functionalist philosophizing also assumes that social reality

47

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 is already created by external forces and that rational explanations can be given. All we need to do is to
measure and uncover the truth by determining causal relationships that exist in objective reality. The
functionalist adopts a deductive approach to change, seeing itas a move from general to specific, or from
theory to action, and using a set of principles to induce and guide action.

Incontrast to the functionalist approach, the interpretiveapproach is inductive and sees change as
moving from specific to general, or from action to theory. The idea at work here is that by studying an
individual's actions, a theory and a hypothesis can be formulated. The interpretive approach has emerged
as a reaction against positivistic, or deterministic, assumptions implied inmodern management theories and
the behavioral sciences. Itprovides a way of critiquing the functionalist approach, and although one may
without itssubjectiveemphasis itisdifficult
view is too idealisticor humanistic,
argue thatthe interpretive
to examine functionalist theories ina critical manner. Interpretive theorists raise questions about the validity
of scientific and behavioral research inexplaining human phenomena. Although behavioraf studies explain
human behavior with facts, interpretive studies aim at the disciosure of tacit knowledge by understanding
the meanings of culture, language, symbols, and objects through the individual's interpretation. Human
actions and motivations are not conditioned by external demands, but rather are the result of an individual's
interpretation of the meanings attached to external elements, such as organizational tasks, hierarchical
relations, functions, roles, and so on (Silverman, 1970).

The interpretiveargument also assumes that an organization can continue itsexistence and maintain
itself because of the members' collective desire to achieve goals and solve problems. What makes an
organization functional is each individual's willingness to collaborate according to his or her own volition.
For example, the functionalists assume that a code of ethics provides a framework within which individuals
maintain their complex obligations and responsibilities. The interpretive theorists, however, argue that ethical
responsibility stems from an individual's reflexive consciousness, which he or she calls upon any given
situation in order to decide what is acceptable conduct. In interpretive philosophy, as viewed by
functionalists, the question still lingers as to how the subjective reality of individuals can be related to the
larger scope of organizational problem solving, such as political consensus building, hierarchical
relationships, functional coordination, and structural change.

The dialectical way of philosophizing is to emphasize the need forcollective action inorganizational
democracy and participative problem solving. Sustaining and changing administration, including structure,
functions, processes, and culture, should be "the result of fullawareness of alternatives and consensus by
attempt to achieve creative synthesis between the organizational needs and
participants" (Scott, 1972). Any
the individual members' expectations should begin with the self-reflexive practice of the individual actors
(Schon, 1984; Jun, 1986; and following chapters in this book).

In the dialectical perspective, what makes administration functional is the individual's commitment
to develop an intersubjective, shared experience with other members. Furthermore, what is essential in
on the because their behaviors and actions
every society is administrative culture and its impact people
are often influenced by organizational norms (Morgan, 1988, 129). At the same time, how the individuals
perceive and interpret the cultural norms is the main contributing factor in sustaining the administration.

and organizational harmony.

Japanese administration is a good example of dialectical synthesis
Japanese workers' conception of organization, groups, supervisors, and peers differs considerably from that
ofWesterners. Although the individuals lack subjectivity inexpressing criticism, displeasure, and even new
ideas forchange, many workers seem to the existing organizational values. Because the cultural
appreciate
bond is so in cannot even think about not joining the teamwork. Others,
strong organizations, many people
who are discontented with the existing norms, such as the seniority system,
particularly young people
and a workload, the of changing the strong culture.
loyalty, longworking hours, heavy perceive impossibility
And yet students, workers, managers, and teachers in general seem to appreciate the Japanese way of
activities. see their is often inefficient inmaking decisions. Once decisions are
administering They system

48

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
made, however, the process of implementing them moves efficiently. Japanese administrators and
academics think that the American system is too individualistic and hierarchical, having a top-down decision
making process. Their view is built on the philosophy of bottom-up management, which provides a great
deal of autonomy and participation at the lower and middle levels of the organization. Japanese
administration is paternalistic, and yet, because it is deeply rooted in the culture, seems, on the whole, to
work.

Ontological and Epistemological Concerns

Perhaps two of the most controversial issues inadministrative theory are I) the relationship between
the organization and the individual, and 2) the ways of knowing administrative phenomena. The former
refers to the ontological questions involving the individual's existential stand in a bureaucratic and
depersonalizing organization. The latter deals with the epistemoiogical questions that concern our
assumptions about the different modes of investigating and understanding administrative situations. It is
concerned with how we know what is true and how we generate useful knowledge that explains human
behavior and action and that contributes to understanding administrative phenomena. These two
philosophical approaches are not mutually exclusive, but rather reciprocal, because our ontological stand
on human nature and social reality is influenced by our epistemological presuppositions, and vice versa.
Ifwe believe an individual's action, inmaking a choice on a particular issue, is voluntaristic, then our
explanation of his or her action should be understood in a nondeterministic manner. Because each
individual member might have a different interpretation of the meaning of the issue, we would be ina better
position to understand the meaning of itfrom his or her subjective point of view.

Ifwe assume that there are certain commonalities among the individual members concerning the
issue, we would probably try to approximate the people's view of the issue. Therefore we would test an
established hypothesis, scientifically analyzing whether a certain element influenced the perception of the
individuals' behavior. Certainly, in this case we would tend to employ the positivistic, or deterministic, way
of knowing the behavior of the individual members and the presumed objective reality.

To avoid the pitfalls of the objective and subjective ontology and epistemology, the dialectical
approach is suggested. Dialectical epistemology is an extension of existential phenomenology. Like the
existential phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty (1973) and others, it focuses on conceptual, as opposed to
factual, analysis. Anyone who raises questions about the problem of both the functionalist and the
interpretive epistemology and search for a creative synthesis between the objective and the subjective
modes of learning, may be sympathetic to entering a dialectical epistemic realm; the realm inwhich
positivistic and antipositivistic, value-neutral and value-committed, objective and subjective, are critically
examined and merged intoa value-critical and intersubjective mode of understanding. Thus the dialectical
epistemology is built on both epistemologies, because they provide the foundations of administrative
knowledge. Knowing what information to synthesize calls for our ability to critically reflect on the different
modes of philosophical inquiryand knowledge we generate from administrative situations. This, however,
has to be accomplished through our reflexive action and choice. Inother words, the meaning of dialectical
synthesis should be grounded insocial interaction and dialogue among participants. This is not to say that
inevery polarizing situation, dialectic and intersubjectivity is possible. In fact, because of pluralistic politics
and differences in individual interest, consensus and sharing of experiences are not always possible.

Contemporary public administration is inevitably linked to the functionalist philosophy. Although this
is understandable in the context of the practitioners either wishing to expand their
authority or merely wishing to survive inan era of declining resources, public administrators would benefit
if they paid more attention to both the interpretive and the dialectical ways of the
philosophizing
administrative phenomena. Ifwe are to move beyond the current state of intellectual stagnation and our
inabilityto develop humane alternatives, we should explore how the differentdifferentways of philosophizing
could offer new directions. Even if we continue the functionalist tradition as the dominant mental framework,

49

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 it is important thatwe understand why we relyon the functionalism's management approaches and problem
solving strategies. Because many complex and nonroutine issues of problem solving are beyond
functionalist solution, the established assumptions of public administration need to be reexamined and
rejustified in lightof the changing contexts of society. Alternative approaches can begin from a different set
of assumptions, which may lead to the same goal of promoting the public good.

Administration,IndividualGrowth,and Public Good

In 1958,Marshall Dimock attemptedto put the studyof public administrationina philosophical

perspective. He argued that public administration is more than a science and more than an art: it is a
philosophy. He stated the following:

Philosophy isa body of beliefand practiceaimed at achievingbetter

performance. A philosophy of administration is a thought-through and
viable pattern of survival and influence for individuals and for
institutions.It isgood policyand good technique. But most of all
it is a real integration, a blending of everything that is important
(Dimock, 1958,I)

Dimock's goal was to integrate the administration with the individual, organizational goals and
objectives with social values and individual growth. To integrate many polarlized elements, he insisted that
"people at all levels are encouraged to develop a philosophy of administration" (Dimock, 1958, 6). Although
Dimock's observation was insightful,his illustration of a philosophy of administration did not address the
importance of the individual's responsibility to critically reflect upon institutional goals, structure, functions,
and, above all, conflicting theoretical concepts.

As suggested by dialectical philosophizing, we must increase our awareness of the inherent

problems of the unidimensional way of studying public administration. When the levels of awareness are
heightened, conceptual differences and their complementarity can be utilized in collaborative efforts to
integrate organizational needs with individual needs. Furthermore, our understanding of and appreciation
fordifferent philosophical ideas could produce new conceptual possibilities for encouraging administrators
to recognize their responsibility to promote both the public good and also the quality of working life for
organizational members.

To understand the broader public interestand to pursue philosophical inquiry, the student of public
a
administration needs to develop the perspective of generalist rather than that of a specialist. That is so
that he or she might be able to appreciate the significance and implications of theoretical assumptions and
concepts other than his or her own habits of thought and special training. Ifa public administrator is to
promote the interests of the public, then he or she must also acquire skill inunderstanding social reality from
a citizen's (or client's) viewpoint. He or she must also acquire methods of obtaining information other than
positivistic and scientific methods. A philosophy of administration will challenge many habitual, unreflective,
routine, and purposeless activities of administration. It is also important because itoffers the perspective
toward the improvement of human activity and the building of a democratic community. Furthermore, no
the basic
philosophy of administration isworth pursuing ifitdoes not aim to promote the public good. Thus
aim of philosophical inquiry is to educate students of public administration to understand their ethical
to the and instill in them a desire for meaningful action and a wish to transform the
responsibility public,
bureaucratic institution into a democratic institution.

50

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 References

Barnard, Chester. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Denhardt, Robert B. (1981). In the Shadow of Organization. Lawrence, KA.: Regents Press of Kansas.

Dimock, Marshall. (I957). Philosophy of Administration. N. Y.: New York University Press.

Harmon, Michael M. (1981). Action Theory for Public Administration. New York: Longman.

Hiley, David R., James F. Bohman, and Richard Shusterman. eds. (1991). The Interpretive Turn. Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Hummel, Ralph P. (I977). The Bureaucratic Experience. New York: St. Martin's.

Jun, Jong S. (I986). Public Administration: Design and Problem Solving. New York: Macmillan.

Lindblom, Charles E. (I965). The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: The Fress Press.

Marini, Frank, ed. (1971). Toward a New Public Administration. San Francisco- Chandler.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. (I973). Adventures of the Dialectic. Translated by Joseph Bien. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.

Morgan, Gareth. (I988). images of Organizations. Beverley Hill, CA.: Sage Publication.

Ostrom, Vincent. (I973). The Intellectual Crisis of American Public Administration. University, Ala.: The
University of Alabama Press.

Schon, Donald. (I984). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Scott, William G. "Organization Government: the Prospects fora Truly Participative System," inJong S. Jun
and William B. Storm (eds.), Tomorrow's Organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, I973.

Simon, Herbert A. (I945. 2nd and 3rd editions in I957 and I976). Administrative Behavior. New York: The
Free Press.

Silverman, David. (I970). The Theory of Organizations. London: Heinemann.

Taylor, Frederick W. (1911). The Principle of Scientific Management. New York: Norton.

Waldo, Dwight. (I948). The Administrative State. New York: The Ronald Press.

Weber, Max. (I947). The Theory of Social and Economic . Henderson

Organization, (trans. A and T.
Parsons). Glencoe, III.: Free Press.

Wilson, Woordrow, "The Study of Administration." Political Science Quarterly. Vol. 2 (June I987). Reprinted
from the Quarterly 56 (December 1941d): 481-506.

51

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:57:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions