¹ I say this in full awareness of the varying and even conflicting meanings that may be given liberty, equality, and fraternity. A good cause can be made, I think, that the basic ethic of democracy is the Kantian imperative to treat all persons as ends and not as means. To the charge that a broad interpretation of democracy is so inclusive as to make legitimate the communist claim to “real” democracy, I would make this reply: (1) An argument as to which of two institutions is “really” democratic can be settled only by referring both to a common standard of measurement, which must be found in a value, or values. Agreement on values may not be possible. But only if such agreement is reached is it possible to test democracy empirically. (2) The firmness and precision of “strict construction” is illusory, and to adopt this position therefore does not lessen the difficulty. In a recent essay, “Democracy: Confusion and Agreement” (Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 430–439 [Sept., 1951])CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall conclude that democracy, by general agreement, means “political equality,” “governmental response to the common will,” and “rule by the majority instead of the minority.” These are broad, indefinite concepts, which must in turn be given meaning. Certainly the Communists claim all three. (3) There is no objection to an “operational” definition of democracy. (Certainly I assume that there should now be “operational” testing of some of the theories reviewed below.) But the operational testing must proceed in recognition of points (1) and (2).

² Trusteeship is the key word in the recently published Human Relations in Modern Business: A Guide for Action Sponsored by American Business Leaders (New York, 1949)Google Scholar. This small book is a good summary statement of recent “advanced” thought about industrial relations.

³ See, for example, Gulick's, Luther essay, “Science, Values and Public Administration”, in Gulick, L. and Urwick, L. (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration (NewYork, 1937), pp. 191–195, esp. p. 192Google Scholar.

⁴ The new philosophy was generally centripetal with regard to the political processes as well; hence American political science's general admiration for the British Constitution, an admiration generously shared by the British writers.

⁵ In Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 197–222, esp. p. 214 (June, 1887)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Ibid., p. 213.

⁷ American Political Science Review, Vol. 16, pp. 399–411 (Aug. 1922).

⁸ “Administrative Reorganization: An Adventure into Science and Theology”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 62–75 (Feb., 1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in a similar vein, see Latham's, Earl “Hierarchy and Hieratics: A Note on Bureaus”, Employment Forum, Vol. 2, pp. 1–6 (April, 1947)Google Scholar.

⁹ Sometimes it is argued that they are both aspects of the same thing. See Benson, G. S. C., “A Plea for Administrative Decentralization”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 7, pp. 170–78 (Summer, 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and C. R. White, “Local Participation in Social Security Administration,” ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 141–47 (Spring, 1945).

¹⁰ The “democratizing” potential of functionalism is demonstrated in Cook, M. A., “Notes on Governmental and Industrial Administration in a Democracy”, Society for the Advancement of Management Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 139–43 (July–Sept., 1938)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Churchill's famous tribute to the R.A.F. can be aptly paraphrased about the Hawthorne girls. The amount of professional writing cantilevered in all directions from the Hawthorne experiments is a remarkable phenomenon.

¹² As I read Elton Mayo, I have a persistent vision of a modern dairy farm, managed to perfection, each cow in its gleaming stanchion, contentedly munching vitaminized food, milking machines barely audible through the piped-in Vienna waltzes.

¹³ I have made no distinction in this essay between “democracy” within an administrative system and “democracy” with respect to an administrative system's external relations. Some of the persons cited below are primarily interested in one, some primarily interested in the other; but among them are individuals who are interested in both, and feel that the theory of democratic administration must be concerned with both.

¹⁴ Public Administration Review, Vol. 2, pp. 317–23, esp. p. 318 (Autumn, 1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 318–19.

¹⁶ Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 353–59, esp. pp. 356-57 (Autumn, 1943). See also his “The Responsibility of Administrative Officials in a Democratic Society”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 61, pp. 562–98 (Dec., 1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ “Political Ends and Administrative Means: The Administrative Principles of Hamilton and Jefferson”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 5, pp. 87–9, esp. p. 88 (Winter, 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 89. See also his Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service (Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1944)Google Scholar, especially the introductory and concluding chapters.

¹⁹ “Liberty and Science”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 3 pp. 268–73, esp. p. 272 (Summer, 1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 273. See also his “Some Democratic Implications of Science in Scientific Management”, Advanced Management, Vol. 4, pp. 147–52 (Oct.–Dec., 1940)Google Scholar; “On Managerial Responsibility”, Advanced Management, Vol. 8, pp. 45–48 (April–June, 1943)Google Scholar; “Scientific Mediation—Tool of Democracy”, Antioch Review, Vol. 5, pp. 388–401 (Fall, 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Social Planning (mimeo., n.p., n.d.). In following up this line, see also, of course, Dewey's, The Public and Its Problems (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar and the works of Fries' colleague, Max C. Otto.

²¹ See “The T.V.A.: An Experiment in the ’Grass Roots’ Administration of Federal Functions,” an address delivered in 1939 and published in pamphlet form. The best-known exposition of his ideas is, of course, T.V.A.—Democracy on the March (New York, 1944)Google Scholar.

²² There are a considerable number of works urging, with more or less fervor and sophistication, the extension of democracy in private administration. Practically without exception the basic ideas in such works have been drawn from Follett, Tead, or some writer associated with the Harvard School of Business Administration. The books of McCormick, Charles P., Multiple Management (New York, 1938)Google Scholar and The Power of People (New York, 1949)Google Scholar, may be cited in the area of business administration, though the titles suggest more relevance to the subject of this inquiry than is actually the case. The two books of Trecker, Harleigh B., Group Process in Administration (New York, 1947)Google Scholar and Group Social Work: Principles and Practices (New York, 1949)Google Scholar are good examples, showing overtly the influence of Follett and Tead and seeking to extend and apply their ideas.

²³ Among his books the following are perhaps most relevant to this inquiry: Human Nature and Management (New York, 1929)Google Scholar; Creative Management (New York, 1935)Google Scholar; The Case for Democracy and Its Meaning for Modern Life (New York, 1938)Google Scholar; New Adventures in Democracy (New York, 1939)Google Scholar; and Democratic Administration (New York, 1945)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Again and again the reader comes upon a statement which is at best a half-truth, a glossing over a problem not really solved. Thus: “The essence of democratic leadership is the capacity to influence people to act in ways that they come to realize are good for them” (New Adventures, p. 137). The “leaders” in George Orwell's 1984 follow just such a prescription.

²⁵ New Adventures, p. 130.

²⁶ Ibid., p. 103.

²⁷ Loc. cit.

²⁸ These “principles” are stated and explained in New Adventures, pp. 5–6.

²⁹ Democratic Administration, p. 61.

³⁰ It is recorded that she made a “deep impression” both on Lord Haldane and Harold Laski—no mean feat.

³¹ The introduction to the Third Impression (New York, 1920—1st ed. 1918), which I have used, was written by Lord Haldane, who makes the statement that, had Hegel lived in Boston in 1920, “he would probably … have said something not very different from what Miss Follett says.”

³² Ibid., pp. 159–60.

³³ Ibid., p. 5.

³⁴ Subtitled The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (London, 1942)Google Scholar. Her Creative Experience of 1924 is an extension of some aspects of The New State.

³⁵ One of my friends stoutly asserts that The New State should have been labelled The Old Medievalism. The idea of “finding” one's real self in group action had a prominent place in fascist ideology, and at best must be carefully handled to prevent its abuse.

³⁶ In their comment on “The Perspectives of Elton Mayo”, Review of Economics, Vol. 31, pp. 312–21 (Nov., 1949)Google Scholar, Reinhard Bendix and Lloyd H. Fisher quite properly call Mayo to account for his almost pathological dislike of “conflict” in society: “Political conflicts do not necessarily cause a civilization to decline; they may as readily be the necessary condition of a free society, and except upon the radical hypothesis that freedom and civilization are mutual enemies, the charge cannot be supported” (p. 315).

³⁷ There is a curious, Quakerish “sense of the meeting” in this point of view.

³⁸ Neither am I discussing in this essay the body of writings on “economic” or “industrial” democracy, frequently of socialistic orientation. This omission is not solely due to limitations of space; partly it results from a judgment on the validity of their “administrative” ideas. Whatever the ethical validity of “socialism” or “economic democracy,” the part of such writings dealing with administrative arrangements for achieving the Ideal is so loose-textured and naive that it is difficult to take the proffered theory seriously.

³⁹ I refer to such qualities in the literature as the following: the imaginative probing of The Frontiers of Public Administration (Chicago, 1936)Google Scholar, as well as other writings of its three distinguished contributors, J. M. Gaus, L. D. White and M. E. Dimock; Charles E. Merriam's scattered but frequently penetrating treatments of the subject, concentrated most in The New Democracy and the New Despotism (New York, 1939)Google Scholar, Public and Private Government (New Haven, 1944)Google Scholar, and Systematic Politics (Chicago, 1945)Google Scholar; Paul Appleby's refined and urbane worldly wisdom, in such works as “Toward Better Public Administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 7, pp. 93–9 (Spring, 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Policy and Administration (University, Ala., 1949)Google Scholar; Hyneman's, C. S. search for a golden mean in Bureaucracy in a Democracy (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; A. C. Millspaugh's peculiar combination of traditionalism and insight, in such works as Democracy, Efficiency, Stability: An Appraisal of American Government (Washington, 1942)Google Scholar and Towards Efficient Democracy (Washington, 1949)Google Scholar. This list is indefinitely expansible. Perhaps I should add the names of Fritz Morstein Marx, Herman Finer, and C. J. Friedrich, who have written with particular reference to the problem of administrative “responsibility.”

⁴⁰ In this contention, the present “weight of authority” is against me. But I believe that there is no realm of “factual decisions” from which values are excluded. To decide is to choose between alternatives; to choose between alternatives is to introduce values. Herbert Simon has patently made outstanding contributions to administrative study. These contributions have been made, however, when he has worked free of the methodology he has asserted.

⁴¹ How firmly grounded this authoritarianism still is, is indicated by an article by Tannenbaum, Robert, titled “The Manager Concept: A Rational Synthesis”, in Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, Vol. 22, pp. 224–41 (Oct., 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² See Bendix, Reinhard, “Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 5, pp. 194–209 (Summer, 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Bureaucracy: The Problem and Its Setting”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 12, pp. 493–507 (Oct., 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Selznick, Philip, “An Approach to a Theory of Bureaucracy”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 8, pp. 25–35 (Feb., 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and T.V.A. and the Grass Roots (Berkeley, 1949)Google Scholar; Merton, R. K., “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality”, Social Forces, Vol. 18, pp. 561–68 (May, 1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Role of the Intellectual in Public Bureaucracy”, Social Forces, Vol. 23, pp. 405–15 (May, 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Cf. Tugwell, R. G. and Banfield, E. C., “Grass Roots Democracy—Myth or Reality?” Public Administration Review, Vol. 10, pp. 47–55 (Winter, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In my opinion we need similar critical studies of all of the experiments in administration which have been represented as “democracy in administration.” Certainly some of these seem but pious cloaks for selfishness. Democracy is not forwarded by delegating to foxes all decisions about chickens. For a review of some of the “democratic” experiments, see Lewis, John D., “Some New Forms of Democratic Participation in American Government”, in Shannon, J. B. (ed.), The Study of Comparative Government (New York, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans, and ed. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (New York, 1946)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Some hints as to how a theory of democratic administration may be buttressed by empirical, even experimental, data may be found in Tannenbaum, Robert and Massarik, Fred, “Participation by Subordinates in the Managerial Decision-Making Process”, reprinted from the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science as Reprint No. 14 of the Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar. Though the authors were concerned only with “participation as a managerial device,” some of their suggestions may be used for other purposes.

⁴⁶ Significantly, The New State carried an appendix titled “The Training for the New Democracy.” It is clear that a theory of democratic administration must deal eventually with education—education for participation in democratic administration. Indeed, the writings of the psychologists indicating that the “superordinate-subordinate complex” of an individual is rooted in family life suggest an even broader scope for democratic administrative theory.

⁴⁷ Of interest in this connection is the work of Peter Drucker, who has written very perceptively about many aspects of the reconstruction of society to make it consonant with large-scale organization. In The New Society; The Anatomy of Industrial Order (New York, 1950)Google Scholar, Drucker properly states a central problem: how is the power of large-scale industrial organization to be legitimatized in a time in which property rights no longer in themselves legitimatize? His answer, however, for all its refinements, is the traditional one that a line must be drawn between a governmental area in which democracy is applicable and an economic area in which it is not. The integrity of “management” must be preserved, and, at most, employees may be permitted only a share in the operation of employee services.