Search results

Herbert Simon's major contribution to decision‐making theory is the concept of “satisficing”. This was first posited in Administrative Behavior, published in 1947, and the book, concerned as it was with establishing a scientific approach to administrative theory, puts forward an adjustment of then‐current economic theory, which viewed administrative choice as a process of maximising. While, over the ensuing decades, Simon adjusted his definitions of both “economic man” and of “satisficing” in several subsequent publications, the original exposition of these was a major contribution to the area of administrative theory. An attempt has been made here to explore what circumstances might have led Simon into putting forward the concept of “satisficing”.

In a significant, but iconoclastic, approach to Public Administration Marshall Dimock introduced many sprawling concepts, approaches, and arguments to modern organization theory. Dimock, a contemporary of Herbert A. Simon, challenged traditional wisdom with his gradual deflection away from conventional organization and administrative theories. Contrary to Simon's opinions, Dimock linked Public Administration back to classical thought, and rejected the modernistsʼn definition of progress and the growth/decay explanations for organization development.

This paper aims to explore how different motives for implementing activity based‐costing may affect the implementation process. It focuses on the factors that affect different stages of the implementation process.

The paper uses case studies of two different business units of the same company which approached ABC implementation with different motivations. It is informed by administrative theory and institutionalist framework which draws on concepts from both old institutional economics and new institutional sociologists theory.

The paper shows how administrative and institutional factors affect different stages of the ABC implementation process and that the importance of success factors for implementation may depend on the level of implementation stage, and motivation for change. For instance, the quality of information system is very important at the adaptation and infusion stage.

The paper uses case studies that focus on two types of motivation for change. Further research work is needed that would examine other types of motivation for adopting accounting innovation to support the findings.

The empirical evidence results of this study can provide guidelines for companies either planning or implementing ABC.

The theoretical framework developed suggests that administrative theory reveals the practice (action) involved in the implementation, whereas institutional theory reveals the broader (macro) factors which shape the internal (micro) processes of implementation.

It is hypothesized that the growing body of empirical data concerning the naive psychology of the assignment of cause — attribution theory — yields a substantial number of concepts which are logically assumed to offer significant potential insight into the administrative process. In order to stimulate the research necessary to test this hypothesis the existing research is presented and a theoretical formulation entitled Administrative Attribution Theory is offered. The structural framework of this conceptualization rests with five constructs: (1) asymmetry, i.e., attributions reflect a general positive bias; (2) concomitance, i.e., attributions vary with pre‐conditioned mind sets; (3) enhancement, i.e., attributions provide the individual psychological control of the environment; (4) process, i.e., the attributional process is highly generalizable, and (5) reconstruction, i.e., existing attributions may be altered through the manipulation of external variables. Examples of researchable questions are given to further facilitate field testing in educational administration.

A central question of public administration is how political principals secure the cooperation of administrators within organisational frames and contexts; increasingly, rational influences are being considered alongside bounded rationality and non-rational influences. This paper aims to explore the intent of New Zealand’s Public Service Act 2020 in managing administrative behaviour.

The methodology is primarily ethnographic, combining emic and etic perspectives. A mixed-methods approach comprises participant observer field notes and meeting documentation, substantiated by official documents; documents were analysed thematically and triangulated with other data sources.

The Public Service Act introduces new bounds on administrative behaviour. The stated rationale for these changes reveals an attempt to set limits on the principal–agent relationship between politicians and administrators and causes predictable deviations from rational behaviour by cultivating public service motivation and a unified public service identity.

As the legislation in question was only passed in 2020, it is too early to definitively assess the ultimate impact of legislation on administrative behaviour. This case study demonstrates that behavioural approaches to public administration are being applied intentionally by governments. The choice architecture created in the case study blends rational, bounded, and non-rational influences. Together, this produces a bricolage of semi-relevant theories from other disciplines, especially psychology, to explain administrative behaviour. Further refinement is needed to develop a cohesive and comprehensive theory of administrative behaviour that can account for contemporary practice.

Administrators act as agents of political principals, within ethical and rules-based limitations and influenced by public service motivation and social identity. Shifting from implicit to explicit choice architecture does not negate possible tensions between bounds and can signal them more explicitly. Shared symbols are sometimes intended to influence identity and therefore adherence to behavioural norms.

This paper explores the manipulation of choice architecture as a viable strategy for altering behaviour for the better and, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, is the first known instance of choice architecture being “legislated in” rather than merely “showing through”. This study illustrates the blending of rational, boundedly rational and non-rational factors into a choice architecture for public administrators that help mediate the biases and challenges of principal–agent relationships (which form a cascade in New Zealand’s public administration system).

We school administrators, like “practical” men everywhere, claim to have little use for theory. In this we delude ourselves, for we all theorize. The real distinction lies not between theory and practice, but between good theory and bad theory. Good theory is a hypothesis which has undergone verification and which has potential for explaining and predicting events, and for the production of new knowledge. The development of theory, with its constant demand for semantic accuracy and simplicity, is essential as a guide to research, and as a guide to action (e.g. in administration) where it should be regarded as a relational map rather than as an itinerary. The work of Halpin, Guba and Getzels, for example, illustrates that no theory is likely to be the theory. The development of a science of administration is dependent upon such theories. The alchemist described his observations in a half‐mythical language full of metaphors and allegories, not In scientific concepts. Today we appear to live only in an age of educational alchemy.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

The purpose of this paper is to examine three substantial trends in public administration research from a Norwegian perspective with a special focus on administrative reform that addresses organizational arrangements rather than changes of policy by focusing on government capacity and good government.

The paper is synthesizing trends in Norwegian public administration research over the past 30 years by using existing publications and also by contrasting it to development in other countries.

The paper describes, first, the theoretical development toward meso-level theories and an institutional turn in public administration research. Second, it focuses on the methodological development toward more time series analysis and comparative and objective data. Third, it addresses the trend from processes and administrative behavior to performance and effects.

The paper addresses the increasing internalization of public administration research, the strengthened focus on empirical studies of “living” organizations, the need to address the big issues and large forces in public administration and also the transformative periods and unsettled situations going beyond settled stable situations.

Against the various literatures asserting that myths serve administrators well in varying ways, this paper takes a decidedly skeptical stance. While myth is a tool that may be well or poorly used, its use to fashion administrative theory, or to construct an administrative order, or to enhance administrative thought is most often a poor use indeed. What serves Public Administration best involves the much more difficult effort of constructing theories of historical causation that derive directly from the experiences that practitioners have with the problems they find it necessary or desirable to solve.