(College/Institute)
Introduction
In the early part of the 1950’s, in what has now become the “Simon-Waldo debates,” began to be published in The American Political Science Review. Starting as a reference in Waldo’s “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration” work that was released in March 1952, the high profile debates was anchored on Waldo’s doubts on the concern of “logical positivism” and the response of Herbert Simon in the succeeding June issue of the Review. As newcomers to the discipline and both in their early 30s, Waldo and Simon discussed the issues of democracy, efficiency, and principles, with Waldo declaring that the “politics-administration” as well as the “fact-value” divisions was flawed. In the same manner, in Waldo’s opinion on the matter, Simon’s evidently significant contributions to the field of administrative research were already done when Simon strive free of the positivist approach. This was the summative declaration of Waldo’s implication to the response of Simon.
Withal, this sole point drew responses not only from Simon but also from management consultant and author Peter Drucker who gave a lengthier response than that given by Simon and centered on the character and the changes of large companies and business entities. Nonetheless, Simon responded by claiming that “logical positivists” do not differentiate “value decisions” from “factual decisions,” that political ideas, for all benefits, force, and perspective, may be aesthetically pleasing but not possible, and its absence of logical strength would not be able to withstand even the scrutiny of a fundamental reasoning examination (Lynch, Cruise, 2005, p. 440).
Simon was indebted to the works of Chester Barnard; however, it must be noted that Barnard was not a logical positivist. Barnard was an empiricist; his work was founded on the “trait theory” of the school of leadership. Barnard played down the emphasis on intelligence and academic achievement when discussing the need of companies for recruitment purposes; rather, Barnard centers on the “traits” of “hunches,” know-how, insight, and other traits associated with experience. This proposition on the qualifications of executives would transcend Simon; in the early part of the 1970s with the work of Mintzberg (1973) that framed the decision making policy of organizational systems (Cruise, 2004, pp. 274-275).
The developers of “logical positivism” were progressives; these worked to restructure a prevailing condition of wanton public deceit and incompetence that was purportedly prevailing in the discipline. If the primary premise of government-freedom and equality-was not the cause of the innate evils of administrative mishandling, then the reason must be found in the interpretation and the institutionalization of the principle. In this light, a new philosophy of democracy was established in that the previous holding of democracy, that the power of the democratic model lay in the distribution of the government’s power to the people. The bulwark of this innovative philosophy was that this type of public administration was separated from the political dynamics in the society.
In the latter part of the 1870s, Woodrow Wilson delivered a predictive statement of the new principle in his work “The Study of Administration (1887). In Study, Wilson averred that self-administration is not being involved in all aspects of governance; Wilson argued that democracy was a threat rather than a boon by spreading power to too much a larger mass. Wilson argues that there is no threat in the distribution of power if the user of that power will be responsible in its use; however, if the power is spread to too many people and entities, and if the users of that power are unknown, then this proffers irresponsibility for the use of that power (Waldo, 1952, pp. 85-86).
In the holding of Cruise (2004), the school of “logical positivism” as a movement has had the most significant impact in the area of public administration. By the latter part of the 1930s, during the period when the field of discipline was just beginning to be established both as an occupation and an academic area, largely as a result of the work of the groundbreaking work of the writers of the “Classical Period” including Frank Goodnow, Luther Gulick, and Lyndall Urwick, among others. These planted the “seeds” of the school of logical positivism.
In the following years, the assaults were refined and improved by a University of Chicago doctoral student, Herbert Simon. These attacks resulted in a major shift in the field of public administration in the latter part of the 1940s as well into the early years of the 1950s that were so substantive that there was a period that even the term “public administration” was beginning to disappear from both the academic and the professional vista. Simon and the school of “logical positivism” altered a number of disciplines; though Simon’s interest fell mainly in the area of human problem resolution that resulted in landmark work in areas far from the field of public administration, Simon retained an attitude similar to the area of human conduct-a dedication to comprehending human disposition, but also in the area of restructuring practice and institutions (Cruise, 2004, pp. 263-264).
Nonetheless, in response to the “zeal” being displayed by Simon, Drucker avers that even though the field of public administration can be “saved” by the precepts of logical positivism, the matter as constructed by Simon is contested by Drucker. Empirical research avers that logical positivism has achieved a useful utility as a critiquing mechanism; that logical positivism is not the end or the philosophy itself, but merely a succeeding chapter in the chronology of philosophy (Simon, Waldo, Drucker, 1952, p. 501). Waldo avers that administrative research is focused on valuation and comprehension.
Waldo avers that valuation indirectly engages morality, understandings of right and wrong. Hence, identified techniques engaged by science are incompatible with comprehension and the valuation of human beings. Moreover, queries on value are incompatible to scientific scrutiny. Simon could have strongly supported this last statement; however, the objectives of the two digressed in this area; Waldo’s objective lay in warning society of the limits of science in the discussion of public administration; Simon’s, on the other hand, was to inform the public of the power of the same (Harmon, 1989, p. 440).
In this light, administrative competence is averred to be improved by placing the members of the agency and entity in a fixed structure to sustain “unity of command.” Here, there must be a clear definition as to what is an accurate understanding of what is “authority.” An underling can be said to be acquiescing to authority when the former acts in the manner that has been propounded by another regardless of one’s personal opinions and beliefs. This structured command framework as with the concept of “specialization,” cannot be infringed upon since a person cannot comply with two competing commands; here, there must be a stronger impediment than mere physical restraint. Hence, a further position can be gleaned; in that it is difficult to locate a member of an organization when he receives a directive from more than one superior (Simon, 1946, pp. 54-55).
Though Waldo did not proffer an opposition to logical positivism as well as empirical analysis, Waldo rejected the donning of “intellectual blinders;” nonetheless, this can hardly be regarded as a landmark event or even enlightening. In fact, this can be more regarded as the genesis of a discussion on a primetime news talk show than a rational, objective discussion on the issue. Waldo, in 1954, contended that administrative theory should also engage ethical analysis since the latter is inextricably linked to human conduct. The following year, Waldo continued on that the value issue in the analysis of the administrative study must be viewed in the “politics-administration” dichotomy.
References
Cruise, P.L. (2004), Positively no proverbs need apply: revisiting the legacy of Herbert A. Simon. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, Volume 6, issue 4, pp. 363-384
Dubnick, M.J. (1999) “Demons, spirits, and elephants: reflections on the failure of public administration theory” Retrieved from <http://localgov.fsu.edu/papers/archive/Dubnick_001.pdf
Harmon, M.M (1989) The Simon/Waldo debate: a review and update. Public Administration Quarterly Winter, Volume 12 number 4, pp. 437-451
Lynch, T.D., Cruise, P.L (2009) Handbook of organization theory and management: the philosophical approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press
Simon, H.A., (1946) The proverbs of administration, Public Administration Review Volume 6 number 1, pp. 53-67
Simon, H.A., Drucker, P.F., Waldo, D., (1952) Development of theory of democratic administration,” The American Political Science Review Volume 46 number 2 pp. 494-503
Waldo, D., (1952) Development of theory of democratic administration” The American Political Science Review, Volume 46 number 1 pp. 81-103
