Optimal Search for TruthAuthor(s): R. E. RieckSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 39, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1979), pp. 597-598Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976195 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 02:53

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:53:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

597

O MM UA AIO

"Us" vs. Lay Citizens

To the Editor:

I welcomed Dr. Peter Savage's review of the novels of Arthur Hailey in the March/April 1979 issue of Public Administration Review. Rarely is popular literature considered a proper topic for analysis in a professional journal. My excitement at seeing the review was lessened as I read it, however. At several points, Dr. Savage accords the word "us" an unfortunate connotation. Specifically, "Hailey writes neither for literary critics nor for us" (page 185), and "He writes for a market that does not include us except to the extent that we wish to be entertained" (page 187). Clearly, the "us" is meant to include professional public administrators and/or instructors in public administration and to exclude lay citizens. I find this distinction in Mr. Hailey's readership unfortunate for the future of public administration literature. We are all readers and learners from whatever source, be it the novels of Louis L'Amour or the scholarly tomes- Herbert Spencer, for example. My point is this: As long as the "popular" style of writing and a non-academic approach to organizations is considered only for casual reading, many writers in the field of public administration will feel no need to drop the dull and unappealing style of writing used to explain modern organizations.

John A. Huffinan Senior Area Planner

Central Midlands Regional Planning Council

Savage's Review "Superfluous"

To the Editor:

Except for offering a fine example of the convoluted writing he bemoans, Mr. Savage's review of Mr. Hailey's books was superfluous (as are Mr. Hailey's books, to one reading a journal of public administration). Why he foists upon us a review of five books, which he himself considers "failures for our purposes," escapes me. So what? Who would have expected otherwise? It is as if Mr. Savage took us to a hardware store to tell us that we could find no candy there, and delivered that obvious fact as if it was a revelation!

But I do agree with Mr. Savage that "public administration is a field of study made dull by its literature." However, to spice it with irrelevancies is no solution.

Lloyd W. Franks Director of Taxes and Accounts

New York State Insurance Department

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1979

P.A. Literature Too Pedantic

To the Editor:

Mr. Huffman is correct. My use of "us" was meant to embrace precisely the audience he defines. Being neither able nor willing to be all things to all people, I write for this audience. I fear lay readers will have to do the best they can without my pearls of limited wisdom. Now, if the New York Review of Books should invite me to review Hailey, I can be had.

Mr. Huffman and I are at one in hoping for a more popular style and sometimes a less pedantic approach in the literature of public administration. I suspect he would also agree that this should not be at the cost of a celebratory or uncritical vision. And this is the ground on which I would trade Hailey for Mailer. The pitfalls of sacrificing slickness for substance, and style for veracity haunt those of us who seek to triumph over tedium. Shifting the medium and staying popular, the difference I am trying to capture is that between the authentic moments of the "Deerhunter" and the duplicity of "Coming Home"; one was an honest try at horror, the other a dishonest disguise of standard Hollywood romance.

Mr. Huffman and I could write reams. Will anyone join us? Director Franks' modest letter contains less than meets the

eye.

Peter Savage

Optimal Search for Truth

To the Editor:

In reading Richard 0. Mason's article, "The Role of Manage- ment in Science," PAR, March/April 1979, I disagree with one of the author's basic assumptions. He stated that the conclusions of the scientist are modified by the realities of economic constraints, which distort the search for "Truth."

I submit that the scientist-administrator referred to in this article is a rather sophisticated individual who understands the pragmatic aspects of the management game. He thinks of himself as a manager. I believe that there is at least one more type of scientist-administrator who is primarily a scientist. He thinks of himself as a scientist.

With this latter attitude, when a scientist-administrator is faced with a reduction in resources he will opt to continue the optimal search for 'Truth" and cut his expenses by reducing day-to-day services to the non-science community. In this approach the organization contracts and becomes more intro- verted. I am convinced that the dedicated scientist-tumed-admin- istrator is primarily concerned with the search for "Truth," as a scientist. I believe that the dedicated scientist seeks to attain a closed-system of management, with its inherent predictability,

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:53:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

598 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

without realizing that only through an open-system of manage- ment can he obtain the resources needed for his science programs. I feel that the dedicated scientist is bored with the complexities of management and seeks more controlled environ- ment, and its isolation, regardless of its effectiveness.

R. E. Rieck Silver Spring, Md.

Scientist's Truth Depends on Non-Scientific Decisions

To the Editor:

I am substantially in agreement with Mr. Reich's comments. In addition he provides some new insights into the ways in which scientist-administrators respond to resource management prob- lems. My point, which was perhaps not stated well in the paper, is not that economic constraints "distort" the search for "truth," at least in the pejorative sense of the term. Rather it is that truth is an ideal which can never be acquired fully. That aspect of truth which the scientist is able to attain depends necessarily on many non-scientific decisions such as those pertaining to the acquisition and allocation of resources. In short we can never know everything. What we do know is a function of how we manage our resources. What Mr. Reich rightly points out is that faced with a reduction in resource levels many scientist-administrators are guided more by their concept of the search for truth than by other ideals.

Richard 0. Mason

Alteration

To the Editor:

I have received the copies of the third issue for 1979 of Public Administration Review, and I wanted to thank you for publish- ing the Mini-symposium on Internships in Public Administration. I thought it was a very good one, although, of course, I am prejudiced.

I also am writing to ask if you would be good enough to correct an error that appeared in my own contribution ("Are Internships Worthwhile?") to the mini symposium. The error is my fault. I checked the original manuscript. On page 246 of the article, column 1, line 9 from the top: "but, second, nearly 29 per cent of the former interns with one to five years experience were supervising from 1 to 100 employees in contrast to 26 per cent of the non-interns." The reference should be "from 1 to 10 employees."

Nicholas L. Henry Director, Center for Public Affairs

Arizona State University

Control Systems Meant to Solve Small Problems

To the Editor:

re: "To Manage Is Not to Control: Or the Folly of Type II Errors," March/April 1979.

I agree completely with the authors' contention that manage- ment must be flexible to be effective. I cannot agree, however, with their corollary which is, apparently, that "MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS" ARE NO DAMN GOOD, NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.

Basic to this latter premise is the apparent belief that so-called "management control systems" control something and do so in a rigid, prescribed manner. Actually, none of the systems cited are, properly, control systems at all. They are merely tools for the manager's use and, of themselves, control nothing. It is possible that terming these systems "control systems" has, itself, pro- duced unrealistic expectations in managers trying to use them, with a concomitant lack of appreciation of the true purposes, capabilities and limitations of the system chosen. The result, in such cases, must be another "failure of the system."

It might be instructive to examine the process for managing a project such as the development of a new product or the erection of a facility. While different managers will institute different procedures-from very formal to almost none at all-the process that each follows can be shown (as can any reasoned activity) to come down to an iterative, sometimes commingled, five-step process, viz.:

1. establishing a baseline, 2. measuring progress, 3. comparing actual achievement to baseline requirements, 4. analyzing any variances, 5. making necessary corrections.

Note that this outline could just as well describe a physical control system. Even a very simple system such as a thermostat to control room temperature essentially performs in this manner, as does the most sophisticated, multi-function system. There- fore, even though one may not want to call it a control system, the normal process for managing a project can be considered to be analogous to a physical control system.

However, none of the so-called "management control sys- tems" perform all of these functions and, in particular, not the essential "control function," that of making corrections.

What, then, is the function of the PERTs and their ilk? It is, of course, not the same for all, but the most sophisticated or a combination of simpler ones might perform some or all of the following:

1. Assist in organizing and synthesizing the baseline and in presenting it in a visible, usable manner. Doing this in some manner is essential since the baseline includes not only what is to be done, but also how it is to be done (tasks, etc.), when each task is to be done (schedule), what resources are allocated to each task (budget), and who is responsible.

2. Providing a framework, at least, for measuring progress. 3. Assisting in comparing actual achievement to plan and in

identifying any variances. 4. Assisting in the analysis of variances as to significance and

impact and in identifying available alternatives for correction. Note, in the above, the emphasis on the word "assist."

In other words, the so-called "'management control system" may be a tool for use in one or another-or all-of the first four steps in the process, but not in the fifth. That one is reserved for the manager. Only he can make the decision governing the correction to be made; especially since, more often than not, it will involve a change to the baseline.

On the wall in my office is a quotation from, I believe, Lao-tse which says, in part, "the biggest problem in the world could have been solved when it was small." I suggest that the true function of a good "management control system" is to enable the manager to identify problems while they are still

NOVEMIBER/DECEMBER 1979

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:53:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions