A NEW TAXONOMY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
| Pages | 141-152 |
| Published date | 01 February 1981 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009844 |
| Date | 01 February 1981 |
| Author | CHRISTOPHER HODGKINSON |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL
OF
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XIX, NUMBER
2
SUMMER
1981
A NEW TAXONOMY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
CHRISTOPHER HODGKINSON
The state
of
contemporary theory
in
administration
is
contentious. This
is
most
evident
in the
subset
of
educational administration where controversy rages
as
evidenced
in
the Griffiths-Greenfield debate and its variations. To some extent this
argument
can be
understood through tendencies which Whitehead described
as
simplemindedness
and
muddleheadedness
but at a
more elementary
and
fundamental level the divergences
of
opinion can be traced to defects in conceptual
mapping. One
of
these has
to
do with the taxonomy
of
administrative process. The
article offers
a
brief listing
and
critique
of
attempts
at
process analysis
and
then
suggests
a
version (P3M3) which would avoid errors
of
logical typing
and
which
would allow for a more sophisticated and logically accurate treatment of the terrain.
This postulates
a
non-rigid and elisible sequence from philosophy through planning,
politics, mobilization,
and
management
to
monitoring
and
evaluative feedback.
Such
a
sequence
is
consistent with conventional wisdom
on the
politics-
administration
and
administration-management distinctions
but it
affords
the
possibility
for
some clinical diagnosis
of
organizational pathology
and for the re-
interpretation of administrative practice.
In
particular, the article draws attention
to
the match between
the
taxonomy
and
cognitive, value,
and
reality correlates.
Cognitive correlates
are
based
on the
work
of
deBono while value
and
reality
correlates are based on the work of
the
writer. An important implication of the logic
is
the
peculiar significance
of the
"synapse"
or
connection between
the
fields
of
administration and management. Leadership would appear
to be a
function which
occurs
in
mid-cycle rather than in the Platonic or orthodox view which places
it at
the initiation
of
cyclic process.
Whitehead once said to Russell, "There are two kinds of people in the
world: the simpleminded and the muddleheaded. You are simpleminded
and I am muddleheaded".1
MUDDLEHEADEDNESS
There is an old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". Within
the field of administrative studies we are having our interesting times, times
of intellectual turmoil as one authority has it.2 A time when the paradigms
crack and groan, when orthodoxy is under assault, and when it seems as if
our academic house is not only not in order but is perhaps erected upon
sand. In such times one casts or flails about for new directions. And these
have ranged all the way from the grand overarching principles of Marxist
ideology to the near-existentialist despair of the garbage can theory.3
CHRISTOPHER HODGKINSON
is
Professor
of
Educational Administration
and
Public
Administration
at the
University
of
Victoria, British Columbia.
He is
author
of the
text
Towards
a
Philosophy
of
Administration
(Blackwell,
1978) and has a
special interest
in
problems
of
value in administration and organization theory.
To continue reading
Request your trial