Chapter 1: General Administrative Theories

In this section we present the 10 administrative theories from our research findings as briefly and concisely as possible. Each is followed by an expanded explanation.

These theories also form a paradigm. Joel A. Barker states:

Paradigms are sets of rules and regulations that do two things. First they establish boundaries … . Second, these rules and regulations then go on to tell you how to be success- ful by solving problems within these boundaries … . Paradigms filter incoming experience. We are viewing the world through our paradigms all the time. We constantly select from the world that data that best fits our rules and regulations and try to ignore the rest. As a result, what may be perfectly obvious to a person with one paradigm, may be totally imperceptible to someone with a different paradigm. I call this phenomenon, the Paradigm Effect … . Sometimes your paradigm can become the paradigm—the only way to do something. And when you are confronted by an alternative idea, you reject it out of hand. Now that can lead to a nasty disorder. I call that disorder Paradigm Paralysis. Paradigm paralysis is a disease of certainty.” ¹⁵

We have been formulating and measuring these theories since 1970 and first pub- lished articles on them in 1980, 1984, and 1986, as well as a prepublication manu- script titled Administrative Theory in 1986.¹⁶

From our experiences and scholarship these new general theories seem true. We hope that you, the reader and final judge, will agree and use these theories to help form your own paradigm of the basic principles of administration and governance that apply in an increasingly complex, dangerous, but hopeful world. In the words of the cartoon character Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Hopefully, these theories will provide a better grasp of how to administer “us” and avoid the effects of “Paradigm Paralysis” in the future. We invite you to become “Paradigm Pioneers” with Barker and with us in a search together for more effective administration in all organizations and in the processes of governance everywhere in the world.

The 10 natural dynamics of governance and administration are listed below. These dynamics constitute our view of administrative theory.

The Basic Attitude—An implied administrative
The Theory of Learning—The source of individual
The Theory of Leadership—The source of organizational
The Theory of Authority—The source of organizational
The Theory of Politics—The source of collaboration and
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy—The generator of theories and the determi- nant of individual and organizational capacities.
The Administrative Process—A
The Helping Professions—A
The Zeitgeist Principle—Discovering the Supreme
The Natural Factors—A new paradigm shift toward civilization

The Basic Attitude in Civilization Building

One must always treat all persons with dignity, consideration and respect. We can reject or not agree with anything said, but we must always respect another person’s right to say it. The process is LISTEN to the other person, WEIGH what is said, and then do one of three things with the idea or information received: ACCEPT it, REJECT it, or MODIFY it, i.e., accept that which fits, and ignore the rest—but always with consideration and respect for the other person, and his or her views—in order to protect best one’s own freedom to speak.

The Basic Attitude is an administrative imperative; it is a given. If an individual does not possess this basic attitude in today’s world culture, it is unlikely that he or she

will truly be successful as a “governor.”

A governor is anyone who governs someone else: parents govern children, teach- ers govern students, principals govern teachers and students, managers, supervisors, bosses, leaders, police officers, military officers, administrators, public officials, heads of state and the like are all “governors.” We must always have respect for others, and be willing to listen to them rather than simply trying to control them. That leads to all sorts of difficulties.

We must learn how to reject the ideas of another person without in any way reject- ing or diminishing the person himself or herself. This is the modern-day idea, “I’m OK, you’re OK”; it is the biblical idea, “Love thy neighbor as thyself ” which is in both Jewish and Christian scriptures.¹⁷ It is the same idea, just millennia apart. This basic attitudinal relationship is required among all of us who wish to exercise the individual, organizational, and societal responsibilities that transcend our vocational “work-a-day- world,” and reach into our avocation and “life work” of civilization building.

As human beings, we must learn to collaborate in order to reach our organizational and societal objectives—which is civilization building! The principal authority for the Theory of the Basic Attitude comes from the mandate in both the old and new testa- ments, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Our culture is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious concepts, and a basic tenet of the Christian religion is, “Everyone is unique and is just as important before God, but no more than anyone else.” This principle also underscores the idea of “equality of citizenship” found in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the now fa- mous phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

As a nation of people that takes seriously its democratic and religious traditions, it is imperative to adopt this “basic attitude” of universal respect based upon equality in all our relationships with each other. This helps people search together, as citizens, for ways to implement national and international objectives as well as the more limited objectives in organizations and institutions that vitalize our society.

One of the characteristics of a great people is to be able to handle diversity and differences of opinion in a constructive manner. This was once exemplified by the preaching of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the pulpit of the Rev. Jerry Falwell in September 1985 in efforts to find common ground to end South Africa’s policy of apartheid (racial separation). “We do not want to call and talk about each other, but talk with each other and agree to agree, or agree to disagree, and to be civil and in search of common ground,” Jackson told parishioners on a Sunday at Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church. In response Falwell stated, “We may not agree on many of the politi- cal and social issues, but we agree on this,” referring to apartheid. “We have the right to agree and disagree and to do it charitably and lovingly,” said Falwell. This is the attitude the human race everywhere must foster in the search together to build civili- zation.

Years ago, the late Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, alluded to his deep belief in the “basic attitude.” He stated:

“One obstacle to adulthood needs to be solved immediately: We must learn not just to accept differences between ourselves and our ideas, but to enthusiastically welcome and enjoy them. Diversity contains as many treasures as those waiting for us on other worlds. We will find it impossible to fear diversity and to enter the future at the same time.”¹⁸

Bigotry Society is now well aware of racism and sexism. But most of us are little aware of some of the other faces of “social bigotry.” These are but a few examples:

■ “You can’t participate because you’re not white” (racism).

■ “You can’t participate because you’re not male” (sexism).

■ “You’re too old or too young ” (ageism).

■ “You lack expertise and credentials” (elitism).

■ “You’re not ordained” (religious elitism).

■ “You can’t participate because you’re from another class” (classism).

■ “You can’t participate because you haven’t been elected or duly appointed ” (roleism).

Of all the forms of social bigotry, one of the least recognized and most insidious is “roleism.” It is insidious because hardly anyone thinks of it as social bigotry. But consider: Roleism denies the political importance of the ordinary individual and interested citizen. It obscures the political right of every citizen to provide his or her thinking and leadership. Unfortunately, roleism is pervasive among public officials and legislators who have become protective of their “turf and perks.” Roleism is a major barrier to social progress. It prevents people from contributing their best thinking to organizations and society, and to doing their part as citizens in civilization building. There are many barriers to human participation. Together, they serve to violate the trust people must have in order to vitalize their political, cultural, business organizations, institutions, and civilization of which they are a part.

The Theory of Learning

When an individual is exposed to a problem or is asked a question, the individual is thrust into the dynamics of the Socratic Method, one of history’s proven learning techniques. It has four steps: awareness, frustration, insight, and verification. In the process an individual not only learns something new but literally becomes someone new psychologically speaking. This ability to learn through the dynamics of the Socratic Method is a universal human ability.

Creativity is a process that brings a new idea into an individual’s mind. It is the ability to learn, and it is a universal human capability.

Socrates didn’t tell his students the answers to problems. He posed questions in- stead and sent them to ferret out the answers themselves. In the process, they became aware of the problem (i.e., Socrates’ question) and experienced frustration (appar- ently a necessary prerequisite of success), achieved insight—and learned—and be- came new persons psychologically speaking. If true, and we believe it is, the implica- tion is that individual intelligence can be developed merely by asking people questions.

Consider this example:

You warn a friend about his liquor consumption. “You’re drinking too much,” you say. “You could lose your health, and you may lose your job, your family, and your self- esteem.”

Your friend says, “I’m OK. I know what I am doing.”

One day your friend wakes up in the gutter, and thinks to himself, “My God, how did I get here”? Your friend has just taken the first step to solving the problem; it began with awareness of the problem.

“Awareness” goes a long way toward solving problems in our lives, our organiza- tions, our society, and it goes to the heart of civilization building. Awareness does not come easily, though, because thinking is hard. You must think about the problem, ponder about the problem, and worry about the problem. Without this kind of focus on the problem, you are unlikely to generate enough “psychic voltage” to give light to it. It is this struggling and frustration that sets the stage for the most important step— insight, which wells up from within you.

The first three steps (awareness, frustration, and insight) are personal. They form a relationship between individuals and their problems in the world. No one else is involved. However, the fourth step, verification, is a group effort. Here morality and values and “right” or “wrong” answers of the individual are best tested anonymously against the responses of others who are participating in solving the problem. Second- ary insights are then gained; these insights enable the individual to continue to learn. All of this is done without putting anyone in a “win-lose” situation—that makes it an ideal learning climate.

What are the implications of this dynamic? It means we must enable people (in- cluding young people) to make lots of real decisions about lots of real problems in life; in the process of doing that, they will learn through the dynamics of the Socratic Method. When an individual learns “X” amount, the organization and society of which he or she is a part learns exactly the same amount, and all move toward being better able to solve problems in the future. The principal authority for the Theory of Learning is Socrates.

We are impressed with the writings of Rollo May and with the cover explaining his book The Meaning of Anxiety.

Dr. May challenges the current belief that “mental health is living without anxi- ety,” and adds that living without anxiety in our world of the atom bomb reveals a radical misperception of reality. He then asserts the theory that anxiety is essential to the human condition, that confrontation with anxiety can relieve us from boredom, sharpen our sensitivity, and create the tension that is necessary to preserve human existence.

Throughout this seminal work there runs the motif of anxiety in relation to intel- ligence, creativity, and originality, themes that have been barely touched in contem- porary research. Dr. May points out that anxiety is a phenomenon of increased intel- ligence—anxiety is the shadow of intellect.

Finally, “Not only can anxiety paralyze, but it can be the impetus for our most positive change. Anxiety is the best teacher, for it is only by confronting and coping with anxiety that self-realization occurs.”¹⁹

We agree that anxiety may be a precursor to creativity and a necessary step leading to “awareness” in the Socratic Method.

Insight through the Socratic method is a process that comes to individuals of all ages everywhere as they struggle with their own problems and dream their own dreams. One of the most charming stories we have heard in this regard was in an address given by a highly regarded local journalist, Brent Northup, in Bellevue, Washington. At the graduation ceremony of a small elementary school, Northup opened by telling the children that summertime was dream month. He challenged them to write stories, make up poems, and draw pictures and just see what comes out. He asked the chil- dren if they knew where to find their dream. He held up a pen and told them that buried within the ink they could find their dream. He then said that after you find your dream, you should plant it, put an idea on top of it, and surround it with warm feelings. “Don’t ignore your dream,” he advised, “or it will disappear, and then when you are 30 or 40 years old you will still be looking for it.” He was then asked, “How do you know when you find your dream?” The answer was simple and true. “Your eyes light up and you smile.”

If we accept that all original thinking and all new ideas come from the mind of some individual at some time and some place, then the importance of a “creative climate” in organizations and institutions everywhere that permits individuals to participate with their thinking is better appreciated. The role of administrators (governors) should be un- derstood not as directors or authoritarian figures, but as members of the “helping profes- sions” (similar to teaching, counseling, and the ministry) in which governors help their charges develop their own creative thinking abilities through the Socratic Method.

Our Social Failure Given the dynamics of the Theory of Learning, one can understand the magnitude of our failure as a nation and society to provide all people, young and old, with regular opportunities to participate with their opinions—and thus learn! Enabling citizens to contribute their own thinking and opinions in the public agenda is diminished in the presence of paternalism and the realities of the “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Governors (parents, teachers, counselors, ministers, public officials, managers, leaders and others) must abandon their often “wet blanket” approach and be more flexible. They must let their charges face real problems in life themselves, provide a creative climate in which to do it, and be willing to enable their charges to make choices in order to express their own thinking and leadership and grow in their own individual capacities. As their charges learn to fly with their own wings, they will not only learn something new, they will become someone new—new beings, happier, with improved individual and community mental health, spiritually and politically renewed! The process will build “social capital.”

The Theory of Leadership

Leadership—like creativity, the ability to learn—is a universal human attribute. Leadership is a function and not a quality reserved for the titled head of an organization. To develop leadership properly, all decisions in an organization or institution should be made at the lowest level possible, consistent with two basic premises. First, adequate information is available with which to make a valid decision.

Second, adequate resources are available to implement the decision reached. If either adequate information or resources is not available, the decision should be moved up one level higher in the organization or institution until both valid information and adequate resources to implement the decision are available.

The Theory of Leadership is the source of organizational creativity, the process that brings new ideas into an organization or institution’s “mind.”

Adopting a conscious policy to decentralize decision-making in organizations and in- stitutions in which higher levels assign problems to lower levels produces enormous amounts of leadership. As individuals are assigned problems, they are thrust into the dynamics of the Socratic method and the creative-thinking process; they cannot avoid it. They become aware of the problem, experience frustration in solving it, achieve insight, and learn. The organi- zation and society of which the individual is a part then move toward better problem resolution in the future. And all people involved become engaged in an overall process of civilization building.

Conversely, the leadership style that insists upon centralized decision-making in- vites abuses. A frequent example is exhaustion of the leader. It can be argued that the “one man band” organization is the weakest. The strongest organization is one in which anyone, from top to bottom, could leave and the work would continue with little or no interruption. The best governors and administrators seldom “tell” subor- dinates what to do, but rather provide a creative climate and processes in which people tell themselves what to do to most effectively accomplish their organizational tasks and objectives. Leadership by self-direction and self-motivation to the maximum ex- tent possible for all people in organizations, institutions, and society is the goal. This is democracy in action!

Again, to develop leadership properly, all decisions in an organization or institu- tion should be made at the lowest level possible, consistent with two basic premises: First, there must be adequate information with which to make valid decisions. Sec- ond, there must be adequate resources to implement the decision reached. If either is unavailable, the decision should be moved one level up, where both are available to make effective decision-making possible.

But the question arises, “Can a person at the bottom be a leader? By definition there is no one to lead.” Yes there is. Even the individual at the bottom level of a bureaucracy or a society has to “lead” himself or herself through the labyrinth of addressing organizational and societal problems and then to use his or her own time and resources to solve those problems. This conforms with everyday experience. One need only look around. How many people can be observed who in their workplace are perhaps at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy yet in their private lives are pillars of leadership in churches, communities, volunteer organizations and the like? What do all human beings on earth do from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night? They try to bring some kind of order out of the chaos that is often going on around them in their lives. That is leadership—a positive force— and a universal human attribute.

If we want people to collaborate, and to participate vitally, we must recognize that the quality of “leadership” in our theory is not something reserved exclusively for the titular heads of organizations. It is, in reality, a quality that infuses all people from the highest to the lowest “rank” in every organization.

We must nurture those creative techniques that both encourage and permit people at all levels to contribute their most important human contribution—their ability to think and to lead. After all, without them the organization would not exist. It is important, in the utilization of this universal human quality of leadership in organi- zations, that there be a way to pose real problems in life at the lowest levels possible. People must be brought into planning processes at all levels through new theories and communication techniques that enable them to participate with their opinions within their time and energy levels. As Douglas McGregor wrote in The Human Side of Enterprise: “The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, inge- nuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not nar-

rowly, distributed in the population.”

What is the source of wisdom? Because there is so much knowledge in the world today, it is a truism to say that most people, including ourselves, are just plain igno- rant about most things, and anybody who is considered to be an “expert” in anything is indeed fortunate. So within a culture where “becoming an expert” is a process of knowing more and more about less and less, the implications are that the answers people seek in the increasingly interdependent, complex future are not likely to be found in any one person or small group of people, but are more likely to be found somewhere among all of us in the totality of our knowledge and experiences. Does that mean “expertise” is not needed? Not at all. There is a need for more, not less, but in addition, there is a need to differentiate between “knowledge” and “wisdom.” Wil- liam Cowper, an 18th century English poet, captured one subtlety of this difference in his insightful work: “Knowledge is proud that it knows so much. Wisdom is humble that it knows not more.”

Thus, it is necessary to learn how knowledge can be distilled to produce the wis- dom needed for making organizational and societal policy decisions. This will be- come a whole new organizational and cultural skill requiring its own expertise after the administrative theory has been worked through. And who is the main repository of this wisdom? The people are—people in organizations and people in society and people in the world. Most of the knowledge in the world is in books in libraries and in computer data banks, but most of the wisdom in the world is in the minds of people walking the earth. We need to learn how to reach it.

We like the insights of Erik H. Erikson, preeminently recognized psychologist, and his wife Joan: “What is real wisdom? It comes from life experience, well digested. It’s not what comes from reading great books. When it comes to understanding life, experien- tial learning is the only worthwhile kind; everything else is hearsay.²¹

Along a similar theme which points to the wisdom of the people, George Gallup wrote: “In conducting thousands of surveys on almost every conceivable issue for nearly half a century, I have learned three significant things about our fellow citizens. One is that the judgment of the American people is extraordinarily sound. Another is that the public is nearly always ahead of its leaders. The third is that the electorate has become better edu- cated and more sophisticated politically than ever before.²²

Our more limited research experience verifies Mr. Gallup’s conclusions. When people are trusted and enabled to be responsible in their organizations and society by their leaders, they use good judgment, they are rational, they are wise.

Conclusion

Centralization of decision-making (i.e., authoritarianism and totalitarianism) actually suppresses the “leadership” function in an organization or institution.

Many believe that authoritarianism provides the strongest “leadership,” but that is not the case. That is, centralization strategies to “control” or “take charge” and the like tend to suppress “leadership” in general. This is why decentralization, freedom, and participative democratic processes are the wave of the future for the human race in public and private organizations, institutions, and governments. Such processes simply provide at all levels a more effective “leadership” function, which is a universal human capability, and are thus more effective and efficient.

Furthermore, the decentralization process takes nothing away from the adminis- trator or official at the top. In fact it strengthens his or her role since “authority” begins to flow upward naturally and makes the overall role of governing easier and more effective.

There are extremely important and direct links between administrative theory and economics and politics. “Administration” cuts across and transcends econom- ics and politics. Freedom is required for effective leadership by stakeholders in a democratic context in solving vast, complex, organizational, institutional, and soci- etal problems. Also, the fundamental issue is not “capitalism versus communism in nationalism”; the issue is “freedom versus totalitarianism in civilization building.” What does this all imply for the future of military and other dictatorships in third world countries and other highly centralized and authoritarian nations? It is extremely important for them that they begin to adapt themselves to becoming more free and open societies. Fortunately, this is what all people in all nations in the world will tend to do naturally. Dictators and authoritarian leaders cannot prevail. Time itself will see them fall due to the liberating energies of these natural, worldwide, cultural trends toward freedom. Therefore, it is better for them to embrace the trends and help shape their countries constructively by using their power to make the transition to democracy peacefully.

The Theory of Authority

“Those who govern derive their power from the consent of the governed.”²³ “Authority lies always with him to whom it applies…. Authority is another name for the willingness and capacity of individuals to submit to the necessities of cooperative systems.”²⁴ “…It is the governed who determine the governing of men.” ²⁵

The Theory of Authority clarifies the source of power in all organizations.

This theory is probably the most widely misunderstood of all the theories pre-

sented in this book. Through the years most people have believed that “authority lies in the office,” i.e., in the president, in the governor, in the public official, in the general or admiral, in the policeman, in the owner or administrator, in the manager, in the super- visor, in the boss and the like. This view prevailed among scholars for years.

Then as insights came to those contemplating the problem this view changed. The nature of authority was realized to be more complex than originally perceived. The view expanded to recognize that the authority of leaders resides in their “task,” or again later, in their “knowledge,” in their “charisma,” i.e., their personal ability to instill confidence in their constituents, or in the “situational ethic” where the situation places special requirements on the leader, e.g., during a war. While all of the above are not without truth, the evidence of our studies, experiences, and research suggests that a more definitive and accurate description of the seat of “authority” and power in all organizations, public and private (and applying to all persons from parents to heads of state) is: “those who govern derive their power and authority from the consent of the governed.” This basic principle is stated in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ²⁶

Chester Barnard, a transitional writer in the field, has best analyzed “authority.” Mr. Barnard was not a professional scholar but a student and practitioner of adminis- trative theory and organizational behavior. He had 18 years’ experience as Chief Op- erating Officer of the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and 20 years as President of the Pennsylvania Bell Company. He was able to blend theory with practice and write about it. This is a characteristic uncommon among authors of today but is characteristic of our own Forum Foundation research. Barnard is generally recog- nized among telephone company historians for significant differences in his adminis- trative style from other regional telephone company executives. He came from the same mold as Theodore Vail, the earlier organizing genius of AT&T itself.

Barnard’s statement is most accurate: Authority lies always with him to whom it applies. Authority is just another way of talking about the willingness of people to submit to collaborative systems.²⁷

Barnard’s propositions were verified by the research of Alexander Leighton, psychologist, anthropologist, and naval reservist who studied Japanese-American citi- zens interned during World War II. The significance of Leighton’s work seems to have been missed by most scholars. Leighton concluded in his book, The Governing of Men: “It is the governed who determine the governing of men.” ²⁸

Barnard’s view that, “Authority always lies with him to whom it applies,” and Leighton’s conclusion that, “It is the governed who determine the governing of men,” and Jefferson’s declaration that, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” have important meaning to all “governors.”

It means if children are not willing to be “parented,” then parents cannot “parent” them; if students are not willing to be taught by a teacher, then the teacher cannot teach; if students (or teachers) are not willing to be “principaled” by a principal, then the principal cannot “principal” them; if employees are not willing to be managed by an employer, then the employer cannot manage them; if bureaucrats are not willing to be administered by an administrator, then the administrator cannot administer them; if soldiers and sailors are not willing to be commanded, then a commander cannot command; and if citizens of a nation are not willing to be led by a government, then a government cannot lead them (be they kings, tyrants, or dictators and the like).

If the people of the United States were not willing to be governed by the President and the Congress, then the President and the Congress could not govern them, Con- stitution or no Constitution, army or no army! All of the power of the President and the Congress is derived, like that of all leaders everywhere, merely by the willingness of the people in their constituency to be governed by them. This principle applies to all governors—be they parents of children to the heads of state everywhere.

A case in point was the transfer of power in the Philippines from President Ferdinand Marcos to Corazon Aquino in February, 1986. While Marcos tried to maintain his “legal” power as constitutional president, such power could not prevail against the unwillingness of the people to be governed. Other examples come from the popular uprisings in Czechoslovakia and other eastern European nations as they moved from the centralism of communism toward democracy.

While it may appear upon cursory analysis that individuals can be “coerced” or “forced” to comply with their governors (as in ruthless dictatorships), it is the indi- viduals themselves who hold the final key and ultimate power to continue or termi- nate the governing relationship by simply withholding their consent. Children leave home or school, employees quit their jobs, and martyrs die to oppose perceived injus- tice or tyranny. As history shows, the ruthless dictator never knows when the time will come that the people will exercise their own ultimate power and rebel. The mood of the world is changing rapidly today and people increasingly are becoming more aware of their human rights—they will prevail. Zdenek Janicek, a brewery worker in Czecho- slovakia, after reciting part of the Declaration of Independence to his co-workers said, “Americans understood these rights more than 200 years ago. We are only now learn- ing to believe that we are entitled to the same rights.”²⁹

There are other important related concepts. For example, owners of businesses contribute importantly to success in a free enterprise system by their willingness to invest in capital. Their main contribution to resources is only one part of the total resources required, however—material goods. The most important resource of every organization and institution is its people! Ultimate power and authority rest with people. It is desirable that people be provided opportunities to give their continual consent to be governed in the organizations and institutions in which they exist. This applies whether they are children, students, employees, consumers, or citizens. It would seem that all governors would welcome such information for it would allow them to self-correct when needed and thus, with improved collaboration from their charges, expand their authority to govern.

In the role of consumer, for example, people hold a special “economic sover- eignty” over business organizations or nations that supply them with goods and ser- vices. With a wave of their magic wand, by the simple casting of their dollar “votes” in free markets, they can withhold their “consent” and thus alter the course of “future economic history” for each business or nation. For example, look at the world’s reac- tion to South Africa’s policy on apartheid.

Similarly, military officers are taught the foundations of their legal authority and legal responsibility, stemming from the Constitution, through the President, Secre- tary of Defense, regulations, and orders and through the chain of command as “offi- cials of the United States.” But they are also taught the fundamentals of personal moral responsibility and moral authority, which in certain circumstances might tran- scend their legal responsibilities and legal authority. On occasion they might have to judge on the spot whether to obey or refuse to obey an “illegal” command.³⁰ This is recognition that, as Thoreau believed, the “sovereignty” and “authority” of the indi- vidual is of a higher form than that of the state and thus of any organization or institution formed by or functioning within the state.

In other words, the ultimate source of power and authority (sovereignty) every- where—in governments, armies, police, businesses, communities, churches, families, parents, groups, and public and private organizations—is held by the individuals who comprise it, the people—citizens, soldiers, customers, workers, members, parishio- ners, students, children and the like. That is to say, people always hold the strategic, long-range, lever of power in their organizations and institutions stemming from their individual and corporate moral responsibility and moral authority. Governors hold only the tactical, legal, short-range, lever of power stemming from their legal responsibility and legal authority to govern. Unfortunately, this is not widely under- stood. The confusion and inappropriate organizational and societal strategies prac- ticed today by managers and officials result from their failure to recognize this basic relationship and the fundamental importance of the individual citizen.

People have the final power and authority in all organizations of which they are a part. When their moral authority is exercised, they ignore the consequences that their “legal governors” might use in retaliation. Moral authority is perhaps the only force that is able to transcend all “legal authority,” whenever and wherever it confronts it, either individually or corporately. It is not just rhetoric that the Constitution of the United States and the preamble to the United Nations’ Charter both begin, “We the People.” It is history’s clue to the ultimate source of power and authority in all organi- zations everywhere in the world. This has been a long, hard, lesson to learn and one that petty organizational, corporate and institutional tyrants as well as military dicta- tors of developing nations had better heed in the future. This power and authority is available to create a new and better future for mankind in our nation and the world in a process of—Civilization Building.

The Trend Toward Democracy The world is moving increasingly toward democracy. This movement is driven by natural, psycho-social, world cultural forces that are occurring that cannot be stopped, only guided. The extent to which a nation’s leaders learn how to use dissent constructively is a measure of the nation’s potential for greatness. Totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and closed, bureaucratic systems are doomed to fail. It is democracy that is the historical wave of the future from the groundswell of history in both public and private organizations and institutions. Because of natural dynamics, societies move from kings, dictators and authoritarianism toward democracy and freedom. Democracies simply work better. A democratic open society provides for dissent, for the opportunity for all to participate in the shaping of the common future. It is simply more efficient and politically viable than a closed, centralized, authoritarian, dictatorial system. In a democracy, authority flows continually and more readily upward from the people to their political leaders, who can then govern more effectively, efficiently, and economically. Such is an “inspirational society in pursuit of happiness.

The Theory of Politics

A political relationship is defined as one between or among equals, and progress in a political relationship comes only from agreement, or failing that, from compromise through collaboration; otherwise there is stalemate. Progress in a political relationship is best reached by increasing interaction and improving communication, and thus understanding, between or among the participants. It is a misnomer to consider any human organization as “non-political,” and it is a political right of people to be enabled by their governors to participate viably in their organizations, institutions, and governments.

The American culture is rooted in Judeo-Christian religious concepts, and a basic tenet of the Christian religion is, “Everyone is unique and is just as important before

God—but no more—than anyone else.” This tenet from our nation’s religious heri- tage helped form the basic proposition of “equality of citizenship” stated in the Dec- laration of Independence as, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

The Declaration of Independence is a spiritual and philosophical document con- taining the fundamental principles upon which this country and its Constitution were founded. The struggle to achieve these principles is still being played out today in the continuing cultural efforts to overcome barriers to participation such as racism, sexism, ageism, elitism, and other “isms” that deny the political rights of people. The social turmoil that periodically surfaces is derived from the on-going attempts to get the Constitution, the laws derived from it in our society, and the everyday life experi- ences of people into synchronization with the “administrative reality” of the Declara- tion of Independence. For these reasons, all relationships among human beings should be considered fundamentally political, i.e., between or among equals as we are defin- ing it.

Webster’s Dictionary defines equal as “One not inferior or superior to another” and political rights as “Those rights implying participation, either direct or indirect, in the establishment or administration of the government.”

It is commonly thought that human relationships among people in military orga- nizations, governments, bureaucracies, businesses, and other such hierarchical orga- nizations are non-political, i.e., not a relationship among equals. They are all consid- ered to be hierarchical and built upon a management system in which there are superior/ subordinate relationships. But this is not fundamentally true (in the spiritual sense of the Declaration of Independence); it only seems true (in the sense of the legal system and the everyday experiences of people).

People normally conduct themselves in their public and private “legal roles” as if the superior/subordinate relationship were really true. Because of this, most human organizations, including those of business, church, and state, upon which the people depend for their very economic, spiritual, and societal survival, often flounder from a lack of overall direction and “leadership.” The confusion comes from not knowing fundamentally who is really “in charge.” As explained in the Theory of Authority, the people are in charge. For example, The Constitution of the State of Washington reads: “Article I

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and govern- ments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” People in all institutions and in society have the ultimate power and authority over their own relationships of all kinds. We all need to understand this.

In our “real life work” of civilization building, we are all citizens and equal in our nation and in the world. According to the Declaration of Independence, all human beings are equal; our fundamental relationships among all citizens should reflect this great political and philosophical truth.

However, this equality does not manifest itself throughout our work-a-day world. For there we are invariably subordinate to someone in our various organizational and societal “role” assignments—to our “bosses,” to public officials, to the police officer, to our parents, to our teachers, and the like. No one is immune.

In spite of the prevalence of superior/subordinate relationships, it is a misnomer to consider any human relationship in any organization or institution as being “non- political.” Fundamentally, all organizations are political, a relationship among equals— including even governmental, military, and police organizations. It is only in the orga- nizational “work-a-day roles” that we each play that “superior/subordinate” relationships appear. But notice that the governor in the relationship does not have the power to prevent a subordinate from leaving if the subordinate is intent on doing so, and is willing to disregard any consequences—including death in the case of martyrs.

These role assignments, from the highest to the lowest, have evolved historically from cultural efforts as a people to collaborate toward organizational and societal objectives as accomplished through legal and societal systems.

Citizenship is a job for life. We are all sometimes “unemployed” in our vocational work-a-day world, e.g., during periods of growing up as children, while studying to learn new skills as students, when we lose our “jobs” as individuals and must seek new work, when retired and other such examples. However, as citizens we can never be “unemployed” in our life work of civilization building. Every citizen in the world is gainfully employed in this task from life to death. That is the administrative reality which leaders and citizens everywhere must realize. Each person simultaneously is a citizen of his or her own country and of the world. And we do not have a retirement age for citizen participation or activism.

Examples of Political Relationships
The most foundational “political relationship” in the history of the world is the fam- ily. It exists in the smallest organization—a husband and wife. In addition to their love and family relationship, theirs is basically a political relationship between equals. If they cannot agree on how to conduct the affairs of their family, then one or both of them must be willing to compromise. They must collaborate in order to achieve progress toward their family goals. If neither is willing to collaborate, they will become polar- ized. We call this process “estrangement.” If it continues further without abatement, and with growing intensity, the process leads to rupture in the political relationship, which we call “divorce.”
The next more complex form of political relationship in a society is that which exists between or among members of a partnership. They each have one vote. If part- ners cannot agree, or are not willing to collaborate with their differences, they cannot make progress in their relationship, because it is basically political in nature, that is, they are equal in power legally. If their differences continue without interruption, they will become further polarized, leading to a rupture in their political relationship, which we call “dissolving the partnership.”
The next higher and more complex form of political relationship in our society is that which exists among legislative-type persons, for example: members of commu- nity or church committees, boards, agencies, city or county councils, school boards, state legislators, and members of Congress. These persons are either elected or ap- pointed to their positions, and apart from their persuasiveness and influence, each such committee person or “legislator,” is equal in power in that each has one vote. This is the law. If committee members or legislators cannot agree on how to make progress in their political relationship, and if they are not willing to collaborate, in spite of their differences, they cannot get anything done, i.e., they will become stale- mated and polarized. If this disagreement continues without abatement, they may become increasingly polarized. And because they are “political leaders,” large num- bers of their constituents often share their views and become polarized too. If the process continues without abatement and gains in intensity, it will lead to an open rupture in the political relationship. Depending upon the level of intensity of the rupture in the political relationship involved, it is called: apathy, uncooperativeness, resistance, militancy, civil disobedience, rioting, or rebellion.
The apathy of people in their organizations and institutions is really the first sign of a rupture in the political relationships among equals that exists between leaders and their constituents. Apathy is an unmistakable sign of an organization’s or an institution’s poor “mental health” and should be considered a serious condition requiring the at- tention of leaders to reverse the trend. It is usually the result of an inadequate admin- istrative style by leaders who are unable to communicate viably with their constitu- ents. This condition stems, primarily, not from the indifference of followers, but from the inadequate administrative theory held by leaders who are unable to conceptualize correctly the administrative reality of the situation. Such leaders neglect or disdain the great truth that leaders and followers are fundamentally equal. As a result most such leaders do not develop adequate feedback communication systems with their con- stituents.

Finally, the highest ranking and most complex form of political relationship that exists in the world is that of statesmanship among nations. This occurs between or among statespersons within the family of nations. If they, as equal members from sovereign nations, cannot agree on how to conduct the affairs of the world, then neither they nor the world will be able to progress in their relationships. They must be willing to collaborate in spite of their differences. Otherwise there will be stalemate. If they are not willing to collaborate, they may become further polarized. Because they are the political leaders of nations of people, their constituents will often become further polarized too. If the process continues without abatement and gains in inten- sity, it may lead to an open rupture called war (or at a lesser scale, cold war, “covert” war actions or activities, “ideological warfare,” sabotage, terrorism and the like).

Increasing Understanding and Collaboration

Thus, in a political relationship, which we defined as any relationship among people, the only way to make progress and avoid stalemate is through agreement reached best by collaboration or compromise. Otherwise polarization and possibly rupture will follow. The principal way to reduce polarization in a political relationship is to in- crease interaction and improve communication between or among the participants and thus increase understanding. This is best accomplished merely by talking but always done with the “Basic Attitude” as a guide to personal conduct, including a strong willingness to listen with an honest attempt to understand and intent to reach agreement.

Rensis Likert, former Director of the Institute for Social Research and Professor of Psychology and Sociology at the University of Michigan, was preeminent in the field of social science research. He writes, “Of all the tasks of management, manag- ing the human component is the central and most important task because all else

depends upon how well it is done.” Beginning research on a science-based system of management, which he initially proposed in New Patterns of Management (1961), and described more fully in his book The Human Organization (1967). Likert identi- fied four basic management styles, System 1 through System 4.

System 1 was “Exploitative Authoritative,” e., kings, tyrants, and dictators.
System 2 was “Benevolent Authoritative,” e., benevolent kings, tyrants, and dictators.
System 3 was “Consultative,” e., closed relationships but with open com- munication.
System 4 was “Participative Group,” e., open, reciprocal relationships.

Likert studied the operating characteristics of these four management styles. In general, results over a large number of characteristics showed System 1 to be a nega- tive, poor, and ineffective management style and showed System 4 to be a positive, good, and effective management style.

The character of communication was vastly different in the four systems. For example, “Amount of interaction and communication aimed at achieving organization’s objectives” ranged from:

System 1 “Very little”
System 2 “Little”
System 3 “Quite a bit” and
System 4 “Much with both individuals and ” In “Direction of Information Flow” results ranged from:
System 1 “Downward”
System 2 “Mostly downward”
System 3 “Down and up” and
System 4 “Down, up, and with ”

In “Downward communication (the extent to which communications are accepted by subordinates)” results ranged from:

System 1 “Viewed with great suspicion”
System 2 “May or may not be viewed with suspicion”
System 3 “Often accepted but at times viewed with May or may not be openly questioned”
System 4 “Generally accepted, but if not, openly and candidly ques- tioned”.³¹

Likert concluded that management systems are more productive and have lower costs and more favorable attitudes as they move toward System 4 (Participative Group) than dothose systems moving toward System 1 (Exploitative).³² He stated, “These three variables, overlapping group structure (i.e., the “Linking-Pin” concept), group decision making, and the principle of supportive relationships can be considered to be causal.” ³³ That is, effec- tive coordination, excellent communication in group decision-making, and high capacity among units to influence and motivate each other are causal.

Therefore, with increased interaction and improved communication comes the best hope for understanding, collaboration, and eventual agreement. This applies in every political relationship, ranging from that between or among a husband and wife, individual citizens, parishioners, partners, and legislators, to that among the statespersons of the nations of the world. This also applies to the political relation- ships between or among citizens of the world who are equals and who are participat- ing simultaneously in a process of civilization building in an organization as well as culturally in an institution, in a government, and in the world.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

All human beings are prophetic! They make prophecies about future events and The way in which an individual (or family, group, organization, institution, community, state, nation, society, or civilization) perceives a situation, perceives “self,” or perceives others (the prophecy), will determine the perceiver’s reaction to the situation, “self,” or others encountered in its environment. The reactions themselves, in turn, tend to direct events subsequently encountered toward reinforcing and confirming the original perception, i.e., they tend to be self- fulfilling.

Perceptions of self are gained from one’s past experiences, especially past successes or failures, and the “mirror” of the reactions of others. Positive perceptions of self provide the motivation for human beings and organizations to learn and grow in their abilities and capacities.
Desired capacities are best achieved initially by acting as if they were present.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy is a generator of theories and is the determinant of individual and organizational capacity.

“The most beautiful quotation from Blake that I know,” writes author Jacob Bronowski, “is a remark in which he says, ‘Every honest man is a prophet’.”³⁴ The theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy is the most widely known of all the general administrative theories which we have identified. Most people will conjure up some- thing very close to reality when hearing the words, “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Years ago Dr. Arthur W. Combs, preeminent national educator stated:

“What we do is really predicated upon what we believe. So it’s these beliefs, attitudes, opinions, values, and opinions of people that we have to learn to take a look at. That is to say, what we do [our behavior], is really predicated upon what we believe [our perceptions and prophecies]. So it’s these beliefs, attitudes, opinions, values, and perceptions of people [their prophecies] that we have to learn to look at, if we really hope to predict their behav- ior [or our own].” ³⁵

If people perceive threats, their initial reactions are either fight or flight. If “fight,” the reaction is toward aggression, i.e., stands firm, does not avoid contact, is aggres- sive and will organize resistance, resists accommodation, rocks the boat, and the like. If “flight,” the reaction is toward pacifism, i.e., one hides, avoids contact, is not ag- gressive, tries to accommodate, doesn’t rock the boat. No one reacts to “reality”—rather we all react to our “perceptions of reality.”

These dynamics of the perceptions of governors and leaders tend to determine the capacities of their charges and constituents, because they tend to be self-fulfilling. For example, when a leader prophesies that those led are “not able,”—then those led will be treated as if they are not able. Hence, the leader won’t trust those led (because they are not able to be trusted), won’t challenge those led, won’t enable those led, all because the leader does not consider them able. And sure enough, at the end of the relationship, those led are usually not able, which fulfills the leader’s prophecy and proves him or her “right.” On the other hand, when the leader’s attitude changes and he or she prophesies that a student (or other ward) is able, then those led will be treated as if they are able. Hence, the leader will trust those led (because they are able to be trusted), will challenge those led, will enable those led and so forth, all because the leader considers them able. And, sure enough, at the end of the relationship, those led are usually able, which again fulfills the leader’s “prophecy” and proves him or her “right,”—because the leader had provided a creative climate of trust and confidence in which those led could grow psychologically.

The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy is a phenomenon of great importance. Earliest attention that we know about was called to this in a speech by Dr. Fritz Roethlisberger, a Harvard professor and outstanding authority on human relations.³⁶ He identified the problems that superficial, negative, and incorrect ideas (theories) held by managers about people (i.e., their “prophecy”) cause in human relationships, although he never used the phrase “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” For examples of such ideas see the Frontispiece of this book, “Administrative Ideas and Realities.”

The concept was further developed by Doug McGregor, author of The Human Side of Enterprise, but in terms of his now famous “Theory X” and “Theory Y.”³⁷ For example, in Theory X (negative attitudes or “prophecies”), “ . . . most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives.” McGregor be- lieved that new research in social science made possible a number of generalizations “which provide a modest beginning for new theory with respect to the management of human resources,” that he referred to as “Theory Y.” For example, in Theory Y (positive attitudes or “prophecies”), “The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population.”³⁸

Thus, McGregor’s research showed that these traditional characteristics of “good leadership” are widely held among people and not narrowly based among just a few organizational or societal “leaders,” as then popularly and historically perceived.

McGregor concluded:

The purpose of this volume is not to entice management to choose sides over Theory X or Theory Y. It is, rather, to encourage the realization that theory is important, to urge management to examine its assumptions and make them explicit. In doing so it will open a door to the future. The possible result could be developments during the next few decades with respect to the human side of enterprise comparable to those that have occurred in technology during the past half-century. And, if we can learn how to realize the potential for collaboration inherent in the human re- sources of industry, we will provide a model for governments and nations which mankind sorely needs.³⁹

Individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions gain perceptions about them- selves by observing past successes and failures. This is caused by what they have done, but mostly from the “mirror” of the reaction of others to them. The parent, teacher, counselor, minister, manager, or leader must “mirror” trust, confidence, warmth, and encouragement to his or her charges and also provide as much of a “creative climate” as possible to permit psychological growth. When this is permitted by governors, the recipient of this attitude perceives himself or herself in the same manner, and thus develops his or her own self-confidence and self-image and an ego strong enough to survive the failures in life which are inevitable to everyone. Failure in a creative cli- mate is perceived merely as a stepping-stone along the way to achievement. Failure does not become a crushing defeat, but only another learning experience, i.e., aware- ness of what does not work. Successful experiences, no matter how small, and positive perceptions of self, therefore, provide the motivation for individuals, groups, and organizations to grow in their abilities and capacities and to learn.

If one desires attributes, personal characteristics, or capacities that are presently not within one’s personality, then these can be best acquired initially merely by acting as if they were present. This is also directly related to the concepts of the Rev. Dr. Norman Vincent Peale in his book, The Power of Positive Thinking. The application of the self-fulfilling prophecy, in this situation, is slightly different. The individual proph- esies for himself or herself, and then proceeds to fulfill his or her own prophecy. This is why it is best when you have to “do” something that before going out and doing it, you first get yourself “psyched up to do it” to the point where you prophesy to your- self, “I think I can.” And then you go out and do it—and you probably can.

In one part of the Dale Carnegie Course, individuals learn how to become enthu- siastic by standing in front of a mirror (and later the class) and forcefully, with fistslapping into hand, repeating over and over, “If you want to be enthusiastic, you have to act enthusiastic!” The psychology is: If you want to be enthusiastic, you have to act enthusiastic—and soon you become enthusiastic! Similarly, in an interview of Cary Grant by an audience, he was asked who he had most wanted to be when he started out. “I guess I just patterned myself on a kind of combination of Jack Buchanan—he was the reigning musical comedy star of those days—and Noel Coward. In other words, I pretended to be somebody I wanted to be until finally I became that person. Or he became me.”

Thus, if we want a way to develop new and desirable attributes and capacities within ourselves that do not presently exist in our own view, then we should act as if we possessed the attribute or capacity, and soon we will possess it (from the point of view of others who will “mirror” back to us our actions). We will have become a new being. For example, if one wants to be a “loving father” (though one perceives oneself as not being a loving father), then one need only to act like a loving father (from one’s point of view it’s only an act and not real); soon one will become a loving father (from the point of view of one’s children who will mirror back your lovingness). Similarly, if one wants to be compassionate, friendly, tolerant, without prejudice, kindly, open, sincere, interested, authentic, honest and so forth (though one perceives one’s self not to have these characteristics), then one needs to act as if one possessed these, and soon one will become possessed of them (from the point of view of others who will mirror back your actions). This suggests, in turn, that if we want others to be understanding, compassionate, collaborative, loving, tolerant, kind and the like to us, we must express these qualities to others through our own actions first.

Love thy neighbor as thyself (Matthew 19:19) and the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

We cannot think of a better way for humanity to build toward a just and sustain- able civilization together in the emerging future than through using this fundamental wisdom passed from our religious heritage.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is a very important dynamic in the conduct of hu- man affairs. Many managers (governors), perhaps most, easily rationalize negative feedback information received from interactions, interviews, polls, letters, verbal com- plaints, demonstrations, and the like as being untypical of the people in their groups, organizations, or constituencies. This is especially true of governors imbued with the concept that “authority” stems from the top down. They tend to brush off such nega- tive responses because usually, at first, there are so few. They tend to be reassured by what has often been called the “silent majority,” who apparently are not complaining or “making trouble.” It becomes easy to rationalize further and stereotype these “fringe” elements as agitators, extremists, right or left wingers, or just plain soreheads and definitely not a good type. Believing this to be true (their prophecy), they then treat such persons through their actions in this fashion, and sure enough, they usually turn out just the way it was predicted, i.e., as troublemakers—to fulfill the prophecy.

Another example is the businessman who receives a few complaints from custom- ers which he brushes aside as untypical, since he hasn’t heard from the “silent major- ity”—until one day he wakes up to find he is out of business. The general rule is: Never trust a silent majority. It is usually an ominous silence. Assume the complaints, feedback and the like are valid indicators of prevailing concerns among persons in the overall group. Be sensitive and act responsibly. If the complaints are not really justi- fied, the “silent majority” will quickly respond and restore the correct tenor of things, but when there is no such response, it is an ominous silence. The truth is that indi- viduals, families, groups, organizations, institutions, societies, and civilizations that have strong mental health are not silent. There is, instead, spontaneity, happiness, and joy that will not be contained.

While the concept of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy is widely known and accepted, we have wondered why we, and others, have not thought of it earlier as the “generator of administrative theories.” It seems obvious as one thinks it through. We suspect the reason is that this “perception prophecy reaction” phenomenon has been with us since the beginning of our first consciousness as human beings. It has been automatic—fight or flight!

We are further reminded of the “Theory of the Obvious.” In the field of law the theory states, “It is so obvious, it does not have to be proved.” However, in contradis- tinction, in the field of Gestalt psychology (involving the shape or structure of the interrelation of the parts of a system as a whole as being something more than the mere sum of the parts), this same theory states, in effect, “The obvious isn’t always so obvious.” In this case, the administrative reality appears to lie more with Gestalt psy- chology. New knowledge and understanding of ourselves as human beings, individu- ally, organizationally, and socially, is frequently “not obvious.”

The physical sciences are sometimes referred to as the “hard” sciences and implied to be harder and more rigorous than the social or “soft” sciences. Why then has hu- mankind made far more progress in understanding the physical sciences than the social sciences? A reason might be that the data generated in research in the social sciences are more complex. After all, a single human being is complex. The study of the relationships of many human beings working together seems to be infinitely more complex and compounded. It becomes a lot like trying to take accurate measure- ments using a rubber ruler. It stretches and shrinks depending upon the observer, and researchers in social science keep getting conflicting measurements of what is “right” and what is “wrong.”

Management (a Disenchantment) In an interview conducted in May-June 1993 by T. George Harris, Peter Drucker said: “I’m not comfortable with the word manager any more, because it implies subordinates. I find myself using executive more because it implies responsibility for an area, not necessarily dominion over people.” Management Professors Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, co-authors of Leaders, observed that a critical difference between managers and leaders is that, “Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing.”40 This is a tremendous theoretical insight. As our understanding of the dynamics of administrative theory has matured, we too have grown disenchanted with words like manage, manager, management. These concepts do not adequately describe the profession, and are out of touch with changes in the new, shape-shifting workplace. Imagine a young, relatively inexperienced administrator who learns that beginning Monday morning he or she will become a manager, a supervisor, or a boss. The danger is that the words themselves contain subliminal implications about administrative style. That to “manage” one must rely on directing and controlling. And, given what we now know about Self-Fulfilling Prophecies and Theory X and Theory Y leadership, the young administrator is likely to create one management crisis after the other before learning that this may not be the best way to go about doing the job. We prefer to use such terms as administer, administrator, and administrative. These words are more neutral, and imply a more creative and a less authoritarian administrative style.

The Administrative Process (a Definition)

The Administrative Process is: DIAGNOSE the problem, THEORIZE its solution, DECIDE what to do about it, ACCOMPLISH what was decided, and REVIEW what was done. It is an ongoing process.

This definition of the administrative process critiques the traditional view of the functions of management. It suggests that administration is best conducted by many

people, not just a few. It highlights the need for effective communication processes in organizations.

Most older leaders of today have been taught that the management process is plan, organize, motivate, and control (or a derivative: plan, organize, coordinate, di- rect, and control as in the military). If an individual’s concept of being a manager or boss or governor is that one must motivate, direct, or control others, the individual easily moves into an authoritarian management style, the most pervasive style in orga- nizations and society today. This closes doors for two-way communication between leaders and people, feedback from people to people, and the organization begins to “fly blind” with leaders perceptually detached from their constituents. The situation is similar to a ship with defective radar traveling at high speed in dense fog through waters filled with icebergs—its chances of survival are not good.

On the other hand, an organization whose leaders enable constituents to partici- pate viably with their ideas and opinions whenever possible receives accurate feed- back. It is the same ship but with reliable radar. It perceives its environment accu- rately and can change course frequently to adapt to changes and avoid calamity.

In the new definition of the Administrative Process above, notice there is no mandate for leaders to motivate, direct, or control others. The old definition put the burden for leadership on leaders and/or the managers and left everyone else with the passive (and resented and resisted) role of being motivated, directed, and controlled. The new definition allows everyone to participate in the Administrative Process. It also implies that leadership is a responsibility that resides in everyone and not just in the titular head of the organization, as popularly believed.

Notice too in the new definition, that all people who are interested and involved should be enabled by their leaders to participate and exercise their leadership and influence through the diagnosing, theorizing, and reviewing functions when appro- priate. At the same time, the normal prerogatives of legally elected or duly ap- pointed organizational leaders/representatives charged with decision-making are retained by them. The organization’s leaders can still make the final decisions, and the normal implementation of the decisions can still be accomplished by bureau- cracies (if involved) as at present or can be expanded to include the people. This definition also looks at the Administrative Process as an ongoing, never-ending process. The goal in a free and open democratic society is to achieve self-motivation and self-control by both individuals and organizations to the maximum extent possible.

This new definition of the administrative process is best accomplished within a creative climate. This is set by a positive and helpful administrative style by those who govern. It should be noted that while “Diagnose” is the first step in the administrative process as we have defined it, it is also hooked directly to the self-fulfilling prophecy as we explained earlier. That is to say, people perceive a problem and contribute their perception (right or wrong) as their “diagnosis” of the problem and then continue right along in the administrative process step by step. Since individual citizens proph- esy, it is imperative that they be enabled by their governors through policies of open- ness and involvement to communicate their opinions, concerns, values, ideas, and attitudes to their peers when appropriate and possible. It is only through these open democratic processes and the emerging interaction, that a prevailing consensus devel- ops which helps to guide the state, organization, or institution toward organizational and societal solutions.

Professor Edgar Schein of MIT, author of Organizational Psychology, describes the historical development of assumptions about people (i.e., prophecies). Each of these assumptions was developed at a different historical time, and the first was “Rational- Economic Man” (Adam Smith, 1776). This prophecy assumed that, “Humankind is lazy, needs to be manipulated and controlled, is incapable of self-discipline; and eco- nomic incentives are the only motivators.” These proved to be superficial, erroneous, and negative “Theory X” ideas.

Three more cultural management concepts were subsequently developed. These were “Social Man” (1940s; Mayo, Roethlisberger, Trist). This prophecy assumed that, “Social needs basically motivate people, finding meaning in work must be sought in social contexts, peer group forces are stronger than management incentives and con- trols, and the like.” These assumptions were the beginning of positive, “Theory Y” ideas.

Later concepts followed. The next was “Self-Actualizing Man” (1960s; Maslow, McGregor, Herzberg, Combs). This prophecy assumed that, “The motives of hu- mankind fall into hierarchies of needs beginning with survival, then safety and secu- rity, then social, then ego satisfaction, autonomy and independence, then ‘self-actual- ization’ for maximum use of self.”

Schein explains that, given these assumptions (administrative theories and “proph- ecies”), managers developed different types of “implied managerial strategies” for each case. For example, managers imbued with the ideas of “Rational-Economic Man” initiated economic incentives and believed the authority of managers to lie in their offices. They interpreted the management process to be: plan, organize, motivate, and control. Managers imbued with the ideas of “Social Man” believed that attention should be given to people’s social needs; feelings of acceptance and identity should concern managers; group incentives should prevail over individual incentives, and the like. The concepts held by managers of “Self-Actualizing Man” were similar to “Social Man,” but added that motivations shifted to “intrinsic” (from the individual) rather than “extrinsic” (from the manager); authority shifted to the task; managers needed to be facilitators; and they needed to delegate as much as possible.

Schein concludes with his contemporary theory of “Complex Man.” This proph- ecy assumes that, “Here the manager believes that humankind has a complex interac- tion between initial needs and organizational experiences thus responding to many strategies. Different people have different needs. These needs change over time. There is no one set of strategies suitable for managers that apply to all people at all times.”

The implied managerial strategy for today, according to Schein is:

A manager [governor, leader, statesperson] should be a good diagnostician, inquire into problems, and value differences among people and the diagnostic processes that reveal those differences. Differences of opinion are not considered a threat but are rather an op- portunity for better diagnosis of problems leading toward more effective decision-making. This situation requires new and better communication processes in organizations.

Therefore, the discovery of new, vital, feedback communication techniques applicable in all human groups, communities, organizations, institutions, and societies in the world today holds the key to the release of a fabulous amount of human creativity. This social energy is currently being wasted by most organizations and institutions here and else- where in the world, public and private. Most organizations have adopted inefficient, authoritarian management styles with little or no systematic feedback in their bu- reaucracies. These styles often suppress human creativity rather than encourage it. This has the effect of a “wet blanket.” Such has not been a deliberate effort on the part of most leaders. It has merely evolved from the bureaucratic nature of organizations. The lack of practical techniques and viable administrative theories often leaves today’s governors unable to conceptualize reality accurately. More appropriate managerial styles and more effective communication processes are thus required for successful governing.

The problem in management and administration in organizations today is not just a lack of good theory (why) and realizing that managers should be good diagnos- ticians as Schein suggests. In addition the problem is a lack of new communication techniques to enable managers (administrators, leaders, and governors) to become good diagnosticians. We face a problem of lack of methods for finding out people’s opinions and ideas. Perhaps “creative technique” would best describe the process required to achieve insight into the problems that face us. These problems confront us individu- ally and corporately as a people and as administrators (governors), both today and in the future. In Section Two of this book we present several new communication tech- niques and give examples of Many-To-Many feedback models and groupware tech- nology in organizations that can enable managers and leaders to become better diag- nosticians in today’s complex world.

The Helping Professions*

Leaders (governors) are a part of the helping professions which include officials, administrators, teachers, counselors, ministers, nurses, parents and such other persons in personal interaction with followers, constituents, students, clients, parishioners, patients, children, citizens and other similar relationships. The characteristics of good and poor helpers are the same regardless of the profession.

*Based on research by Dr. Arthur W. Combs

Preeminent Educator/Psychologist Arthur W. Combs began a research program in the early 1960s to identify the characteristics of “good and poor” teachers and coun-

selors. Later he expanded the research to include priests and nurses. He lumped all these occupations together into what he called the “helping professions,” which he found had common characteristics regardless of the profession.

Dr. Combs was a perceptual (cognitive) psychologist; he represented a brand of psychology that assumes people act on the basis of what they perceive and what they believe. Combs said:

The real characteristics of the helping professions, whether we are talking about counselors or teachers or Episcopal priests or whoever, the impor- tant thing about these people, the important characteristic is that all of these professions are dependent upon instantaneous response. The child says something, the teacher has to say something back; the client says some- thing, the counselor has to reply; the parishioner says something to the priest, the priest has to reply. In each case all of these professions are depen- dent upon instantaneous response.

Well, that’s a neat problem. How can you have a profession that’s dependent upon instantaneous response and be sure that the response is a good one? In other words, you don’t have time to think about what’s the right thing to do. But how can you be sure then that the immediate thing you do is likely to be a good one?

In a human being, however, what we came to understand is that what determines the answer which comes out of the human being is

the person’s system of beliefs. What he believes is what makes the differ- ence with respect to how he behaves.⁴¹

Now we turn to the question: What are the characteristics of “good and poor” helpers? Dr. Combs identified the characteristics of helpers (leaders) to include the following:

The Characteristics of Good and Poor Helpers

POOR HELPERS (LEADERS)

1. External data are important — order, neatness, forms, rules, procedures and so forth.

2. Are concerned about things.

3. Feel people aren’t trustworthy and able.

4. Violate the dignity and integrity of people.

5. Don’t see themselves in positive ways.

6. Have controlling purposes.

7. Have narrow purposes.

8. Are self-concealing.

GOOD HELPERS (LEADERS)

1. Internal data are important —are sensitive to the beliefs, opinions, attitudes, and values of people.

2. Are concerned about people.

3. Feel people are trustworthy and able.

4. Preserve the dignity and integrity of people.

5. See themselves in positive ways.

6. Have freeing purposes.

7. Have broad purposes.

8. Are self-revealing.

Source: “Human Relationships,” address given 1970 by Dr. Arthur W. Combs, DAS Conference, Washington Education Association, Seattle, Washington.

We believe what Dr. Combs actually discovered in his years of research were the characteristics of good and poor leaders, including teachers, counselors, officials, ad- ministrators, priests, nurses, parents, and others. Leader/follower relationships often require instantaneous response. And good leaders (and governors) demonstrate the characteristics described in the right-hand column in that they are concerned about people and internal data, feel people are trustworthy and able, preserve people’s dig- nity and integrity, see themselves in positive ways, have freeing and broad purposes, and are self-revealing. It seems to us that leadership is one of the “helping profes- sions,” and a very important one.

The reality is that if one takes away the functions of teaching and counseling from any administrator—there isn’t much left. John Gardner states a similar insight. “Ev- ery great leader is clearly teaching—and every great teacher is leading.”⁴²

Dr. Combs stated that,

“In a world where we no longer know the goals, where the goals have to be the devel- opment of intelligent persons who are skillful at problem-solving, we need a different kind of psychology. We need a psychology that will help us understand the internal life of human beings. To do this, teachers [leaders] have to turn their attention to values because the beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and understandings that make up the perceptions and prophe- cies of people will determine the choices they make.”

Combs believes that teachers (leaders) should help their students (constituents), “explore and discover their own values which is the important question.” That is, “in the pedagogy of teaching, a teacher should not ‘teach’ values to students but rather should help students explore their own values.” The same applies to leaders who should help their constituents explore their own values.

In an article titled, “What makes a Good Helper? A Person Centered Approach,” Combs writes concerning his research:

“With respect to the counselor’s self concept categories … as a matter of fact, categories about self correlate so closely with one another as to suggest that only one, ‘sees self as enough’ may be so fundamental that more specific categories exist only as variations on the same theme. This suggests that [a self-perception of] ‘personal adequacy’ is perhaps the only description required for effective discrimination of teachers [leaders].”⁴³

We are struck by how this key insight of Combs correlates highly with the re- search of Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, coauthors of Leaders (1985). In an inter- view by American Express, Warren Bennis responded:

Four major themes did become apparent in our interviews. Our leaders embodied four areas of competency: attention through vision, the means to communicate vision, positive self-regard, and building trust with asso- ciates. Most of the best leaders have a positive self-image. This is not an ego thing. They are aware of their capabilities and have the confidence to share power with their colleagues. Positive self-regard allows leaders to be more tolerant of the mistakes and feelings of others …. The experiences of many of our country’s top leaders have convinced me that leadership skills can be learned. ⁴⁴

These insights of Combs and Bennis as to the characteristics of leaders are ex- tremely important.

Unfortunately, while Combs was a nationally known educator and psychologist and widely known to those in the field of education, his work has not been as well known or utilized among scholars of administrative theory and organizational behav- ior. They might have been misled by research solely about “teachers.”

Good theory is that which conveys a maximum of insightful knowledge in as few words as possible. No one in the field of administrative theory has yet lifted up and inte- grated the work of Dr. Combs into the discipline. It was for these reasons that we added “The Helping Profession (a Definition)” as an additional general administrative theory.

The Zeitgeist Principle

To work most effectively, human organizations and institutions (from the smallest —the family, to the largest—civilization itself ) require a functional feedback communication capability. Feedback systems are necessary in order to apprehend the Zeitgeist, the Spirit-of-the-Time. This is best accomplished in most organizations by a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback communication system. Few organizations, institutions, governments, and societies in the world today have such an envisioning system. Organizations with such a system can perceive the Zeitgeist and envision better decisions for the future.

Society Seeks Its Self

It is well known among psychologists that an individual without a clear sense of direction cannot prosper. A person with a divided mind cannot easily find the way forward. Social psychologists and sociologists also know that a group (of any size) is also a kind of person. A group has a “mind,” it has a temperament, it has character, it has personality; and it grows and changes.

In previous centuries, there existed a common language to discuss these issues of the nature of society. A few hundred years ago our ancestors could talk of the soul of society, without embarrassment or confusion. A couple of centuries ago they could discourse on the “genius” (presiding spirit) of society. As recently as 100 years ago, nations had a profound sense of their destiny and calling. The dark side of national- ism, which fanned the flames of two World Wars since the year 1900, is one of the factors that silenced conversation about the destiny or soul of nations. This is under- standable—but we do not want to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

On the other hand, the language of “soul” has not altogether vanished. It cannot go away, for it is intrinsic to social identity. Instead, beginning with the era of Carl G. Jung (1875-1961) and his followers, the language of “soul” has been replaced with the language of “self.” It is more fashionable and acceptable for people to say that they are looking for their “self ” (identity, calling) than that they are looking for their “soul.” The latter word is considered, these days, to be too mystical or religious, too vague or metaphorical.

As always, what is true of the individual is true of society and any group. Because human nature is social, and because a group is the sum (and sometimes more than the sum) of the participating individuals, groups from families to nations are always un- consciously seeking their soul/self. We know this is true because of the wide currency of such sayings as, “The British have lost an Empire but not found a role (in the modern world).”

It is for this reason that the “Zeitgeist Principle” is important for the growth of society. For it respects the fact that a group—an organization, a club, a society, or a nation—needs to find its own understanding, its calling, if it is to activate its powers fully.

The Zeitgeist is the spirit of society at any moment, i.e., the “ Spirit-of-the-Time.” We could picture the Spirit of Society as like a sun hidden from the ordinary life of society by clouds of ignorance and other obstacles to knowledge. The social technology of Many-To-Many Communication helps an organization know itself. In finding its self, the organization finds its spirit, its calling in the moment, in the time of its inquiry. For an organization to know itself it must at least know its own mind. This is where what we call “Zeitgeist Communication” comes in. It maximizes the commu- nication within an organization, particularly the communication between the leaders

of the organization and its constituents.

There has to be an impersonal quality to “Zeitgeist Communication.” This is best accomplished in most organizations by a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback system.

To work properly, human organizations and institutions (from married couples to civilization itself ) require a working system of “feedback” communication. Most organizations, institutions, and governments in the world today have no such system, often “flying blind.”

“Zeitgeist Communication” solves this problem. It does so by setting up a sym- bolic dialogue between organizational leaders and their constituents. This is done rather than a physical dialogue (which is usually not possible) or a “virtual dialogue,” e.g., one-to-many communication on Internet, which while possible, is too dynamic and doesn’t allow appropriate reflection and interaction of leaders and constituents.

The Zeitgeist—the Supreme Governor

Zeitgeist is a German word that Webster defines as: “The spirit of the time; the general intellectual and moral state or the trend of the culture and taste characteristic of an era.”⁴⁵ That is, the Zeitgeist is a blend of the prevailing intellectual factors (the factual, scientific world of “What Is”) and moral factors (the opinions, values, ethics, and world of “What Ought To Be”)—at a point in time. This organizational and societal consensus at a point in time is the source of moral authority and in turn is the supreme governor and a force capable of transcending legal authority when encoun- tered. The interactive and iterative organizational and societal processes leading to- ward consensus thus provide a principal social force sufficiently strong to govern spon- taneously. Such processes in an organization provide the moral authority necessary to govern while assuring the spontaneous collaboration of people toward legitimate or- ganizational objectives, responsibly advocated by leaders.

Today in these times of tension and fast-moving events in our communities, states, nation, and the world, the problem in groups, organizations, communities, institu- tions, societies, and civilization itself is one of lack of technique and strategy. That is, how can we communicate ideas back and forth among individuals in peer groups so that through an interactive and iterative process a Zeitgeist will appear? This is a kind of jelling of opinions and ideas over time to achieve within a group or culture an individual and group awareness of organizational and societal consensus.

Administrative theory strives to conceptualize complex organizational human re- lationships. Studies indicate that when an individual or group is given a directive by a governor, the individual’s or group’s willingness to comply is directly proportional to the perception of the “suitability” of the directive by those governed. People collabo- rate when they perceive that a directive is suitable to their own and their organization’s and society’s purposes, i.e., in line with the Zeitgeist. People resist when they perceive a directive to be unsuitable.

Individuals will collaborate within broad zones of indifference to “legal” direc- tives of their governors depending on their perception of the “fit” of the directive. If they perceive the legal directive to be unsuitable and against the Zeitgeist of the cul- ture, they will resist or refuse to comply. This suggests that the Zeitgeist of the culture is itself a governor, in fact, is the supreme governor.

Again, the Zeitgeist of a culture is the source of moral authority. This is perhaps the only force that has the power to transcend or change all legal authority. This is true whenever moral authority confronts legal authority, either individually or corpo- rately. Examples are when runaway children leave home because of perceived injus- tices, employees quit their jobs because of perceived inequities, and martyrs die for their causes. History is replete with the stories of individuals who in the exercise of their final, supreme, moral authority chose, in the most extreme examples, to martyr themselves to oppose tyranny or injustice as they perceived it. Other examples involve societies or groups that have rebelled or mutinied and exercised their final, supreme, moral authority to transcend the legal authority of political leaders and commanders over them. The American, French, Russian revolutions and others are such examples. The founding fathers of this country, in perceiving the unsuitability of the direc- tives from England, used their moral authority initially, and their military authority secondarily, to transcend and change the legal authority of the King. Following the turbulent periods after World War II, the people of France used their moral authority to change the legal authority of their constitutions several times as they perceived such changes were needed. Countless revolutions and uprisings in country after country

through the years attest to the same Zeitgeist administrative principle.

Perhaps a hypothetical analogy will help illustrate the importance of the Zeitgeist of the culture as the source of moral authority and as the supreme governor. Assume that a military superior gives a command, “Shoot that man.” What the subordinate would do in the next moment would depend upon his perception as to the suitability of the command against his own beliefs and that of his perception of the belief of his culture, the Zeitgeist. If he perceived an enemy soldier approaching him and his supe- rior with a gun, intent to kill, and in a war setting, he would willingly cooperate and shoot instantly. An observer of the incident might report under oath in a courtroom, “The subordinate responded instantly, without thinking, and in blind obedience to the command and authority of his superior, shot and killed the intruder.” We can all understand why such a statement might be made by an observer based upon direct personal observation that most people might agree was truthful. But the observer was wrong.

What actually happened was that first the soldier heard the command, then per- ceived its compatibility to his own beliefs and to the Zeitgeist of the culture of which he was a part, and then he shot the enemy—all in an instantaneous response. But if the perception of the subordinate had been different, for example, if he had perceived a man sitting before him, unarmed, tied to a chair, not threatening him or his supe- rior, and in a peacetime setting, he would not have complied, i.e., not have collabo- rated nor given his authority to be governed by his superior even though he had a legal responsibility to do so. In this example, if the last condition were changed, that is, the incident occurred in a wartime setting, the subordinate might comply reluc- tantly, though most, if not all, would still refuse to comply with the “legal” command. In a more modern setting, assume that protesting students or citizens were unarmed and peaceably demonstrating, and that a command was given by political leaders to police or soldiers to “club them” or “shoot them.” What would happen then would depend on the perceptions of the individual rank and file police or soldiers as to the suitability of the command. Soldiers and police cannot always be depended upon to follow “orders” if they are perceived as inappropriate or illegal by those expected to carry out the command. Thus, directives to subordinates and subsequent responses are related to the subordinates’ perceptions of the “situational ethic” at the moment as defined by the Zeitgeist.

Though the subordinate had a legal responsibility to comply with the command of the superior who, in turn, was backed by the sovereignty of the state itself, the source of legal authority, the subordinate invoked his personal moral authority to transcend the legal command. If the subordinate’s perception of the Zeitgeist, the supreme governor, is correct, he will be vindicated and the superior will be charged with giving an illegal command. If the subordinate’s perception of the Zeitgeist is incorrect, he will be charged with disobeying orders. In either case it is ultimately theZeitgeist of the culture that provides the final moral standard to judge the proper course to follow. Whoever misjudges the Zeitgeist will suffer the consequences.

The tragic drama and final conclusion of the My Lai massacre and Army Lt. William L. Calley, Jr. in the Viet Nam War is an example. The trial of Lt. Col. Oliver North, Admiral Poindexter, and others in the Iran/Contra affair is another. The Zeit- geist of our culture highly influenced the final disposition of their charges. Another example, but on a larger scale, is the indictment of nine generals and admirals for the kidnapping, torturing, and killing of thousands of people during the “dirty war” against leftists in Argentina in the1970s. These military leaders made up three successive three-man juntas that ruled Argentina until President Raul Alfonsin’s civilian govern- ment was elected in 1983 ending nearly eight years of military rule. Elsewhere, the verdict may not be in yet: history will be the final judge whether the students in China or the political leadership in China correctly gauged the Zeitgeist during the 1989 student dissent movement which resulted in military suppression and the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Another case in point is from a report from Prague, Czechoslovakia reported by the New York Times on November 27, 1989 concerning “another cheering rally of 500,000 people, who continued to demand democratic changes.” The report con- cluded:

“In one of the most unexpected developments today, three members of the motorized police corps that clubbed demonstrators on Nov. 17 gave an emotional apology to the mass demonstration. ‘I want to express profound apology that our leaders set us against the people of our own country,’ said Ludwig Pinc, a police lieutenant. ‘We want to accept the outstretched hand of students.’ He said the police faced strict punishment if they did not follow orders, and he added that many police officers favored the call for democracy. ‘We all can’t be thrown into the same sack,’” Mr. Pinc said.⁴⁶

A knowledge of the Zeitgeist, the supreme governor of a culture, therefore, is essential for both subordinates and superiors. It is essential for subordinates, for their very survival, to be able to predict the behavior of their governors and people in their culture and guide their own actions accordingly. It is essential for a superior for ex- actly the same reason, and also to know how and when to give directives that will be willingly (even enthusiastically) followed.

While the Zeitgeist of a culture often appears slow to change (requiring genera- tions at times), it is always in a process of dynamic change and is capable, especially in this day of mass communications, of changing quickly. It is doubtful, for example, that President Roosevelt’s request for a declaration of war against Japan and Germany would have found the nearly universal acceptance and authority that it did if it had been requested prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Another example was the dra- matic change in public opinion that took place when President Truman sought elec- tion. Pollsters had predicted all along during the campaign that Governor Dewey would defeat President Truman. However, the American people changed their minds between the Friday before the election and Tuesday’s election, and decided to retain President Truman. (See endnote for further details of this story.) ⁴⁷

Americans, and perhaps all societies, tend to be “culture bound” as a people and resist change. If we want maximum adaptability to cope with the stresses characteris- tic of this age in our governments, businesses, organizations, communities, churches and the like, we must experiment further and improve our knowledge of Zeitgeist Communication. Edmund Burke, a famous English 18th Century politician, dem- onstrated his awareness of the importance of this as follows:

“No men can act in effect who do not act in concert; no men can act in concert who do not act with confidence; no men can act in confidence who are not bound together with common opinions, common affections, and common interests.”

When people lose touch with each other, as is so often the case today in big organizations, institutions, and nations, organizational chaos often follows. On the other hand, when people have a strong sense of participation, identification, and interaction with each other, organizational creativity, mental health, and effectiveness are enhanced. As a result, “social capital” is increased.

For these reasons, we refer to the Zeitgeist as the supreme governor. While the Zeitgeist is just a collection of ideas and opinions, it is composed of the prevailing ideas and opinions. Furthermore, its vision reflects the ways in which individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, societies, states, nations, or civilizations perceive them- selves and toward which they ultimately move in a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Scientist Eldon Byrd said, “Thus, we are the creators of our own destiny rather than the vic- tims of it.” ⁴⁸

This organizational and societal consensus, this Zeitgeist, ranging from that within an individual up to that of civilization itself, is that from which we derive not only our laws but our constitutions as well. Our laws are merely a codification, an attempt to put into writing, what we must do as a people to conduct the public business. The Zeitgeist, the supreme governor, is really the prevailing ideas and beliefs of the people who comprise the culture from which the law itself is derived.

Apprehending the Zeitgeist

The best way for people to communicate with each other is face-to-face, eyeball-to- eyeball, which is the counseling relationship among human beings. This is not only a process where professionals counsel clients and provide therapy; everyone participates in this counseling process whenever one person talks with another. Far from being merely preparation for change, person-to-person communication is dynamic change occurring itself. But no individual today has the time and energy to talk with but a few of his or her peers in any but the smallest group or organization. At the same time that our popula- tion has grown, the culture has evolved to big meetings. And that’s a problem.

The need of people everywhere today is to develop ways to communicate ideas and opinions about those ideas:

People in organizational, institutional, and societal contexts need to be enabled by their governors to communicate up, down, and across their organizational and societal structures. This needs to be done in interaction with their governors in order to make visible the functional leadership of the Zeitgeist, supreme governor of the culture. This must be accomplished by symbolic dialogue (in small groups of 4 to 12 persons) between leaders and constituents because they cannot meet physically. The dialogue is required so that constituents are enabled to contribute their opinions to the world around them. After all, it is their life, their organization, their society, their families, their children, their community, their taxes, their governments, and their future. They have a right to participate. Their participation provides the moral au- thority of people in the exercise of their moral responsibility in an ongoing process of organization, institution, and civilization building. How this can be done will be shown in Section Two of this book.

Zeitgeist Communication Defined

We are working to define a new field of communication that we have called Zeitgeist Communication. Zeitgeist Communication is defined as those dynamics concerned primarily with communicating ideas, and opinions about those ideas, across organi- zational and societal network structures and upward to the leaders/representatives. This is in contrast to most other communication media such as newspapers, radio, television, books, magazines, speeches, and sermons. They are all primarily, one-way, downward, communication systems. The aim of Zeitgeist Communication is to build viable feedback processes in organizations for people to apprehend the Zeitgeist.

The need of people everywhere in the world is to be able to make a positive and meaningful contribution to the decisions that affect their lives and futures, public and private. To do this, new organizational and societal contexts must be created by offi- cials and leaders to enable people to make such contributions. People must consider these contexts to be meaningful also in their “life work” of civilization building. These new techniques must enable citizens (or organization members, constituents and the like) to participate meaningfully within their time and energy levels.

The Forum Foundation⁴⁹ has developed the Fast Forum^® technique which uses an objective Opinionnaire^® based on participation and administrative theory rather than an objective questionnaire based on statistical and mathematical theory. Differ- ent rules apply. The results of participant responses are presented in profile reports and can be summarized in a Viewspaper^® when desired. A newspaper reports the news in the vitally important exercise of the people’s rights of freedom of speech and of the press. On the other hand, profile and Viewspaper^® reports communicate the views of a specific group of people participating, to themselves, to others interested, and to their organizational and societal leaders in the equally important exercise of their “Right to be Heard.” This is a symbolic dialogue rather than a physical dialogue.⁵⁰ All such communication is “advisory only” to organizational and societal officials who have the legal responsibility for decisions in our republic. However, organiza- tional and societal members and citizens have the moral responsibility to participate with their views and opinions and can now do so using the Fast Forum^® technique.

The Right to Be Heard

It is a sad state of affairs when those “in charge” (the people) feel they cannot be heard. No wonder so many organizations and institutions today (especially govern- ments) flounder and appear leaderless. They are often perceptually detached from their “leader”—the people. Since this right to be heard was never enumerated or granted to the federal government by the Constitution, it is one of the implied rights still reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Consti- tution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Thus, citizens need to be heard; they should not feel that the available politi- cal processes are inadequate and that their only recourse is to march in the streets, demonstrate, or worse yet, riot.

John W. Gardner stated, “the essence of participation theory is not that everyone participate but that the right to participate viably is made available to everyone.” ⁵¹ There- fore, while it is not important that everyone participate, it is important that constitu- ents be enabled to participate by their leaders if they wish to do so. For example, though we encourage everyone to vote in an election and it is desirable, that is not what is important. What is really important is that the viable opportunity to vote is made available to everyone.

The Zeitgeist Principle, a primary thesis of this book, proposes that a human organization will not work properly, the way most people would want their organiza- tion to function, unless ideas—and opinions about those ideas—flow downward from leaders, across networks among constituents, and back upward to leaders in a demo- cratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective com- munication system.

What is lacking in today’s organizational, institutional, and cultural processes are:
- general administrative theories to help conceptualize the new realities, 2) tech- niques of Many-To-Many Communication to implement the general administrative theories, and 3) computer programs to exploit the technology available that can be applied to some of our old organizational and societal problems. This is the search that inspired Buckminster Fuller, Marshall McCluhan, Peter Drucker, Rensis Likert and many others.
It may be too early to come to grips with ‘technology’ as a specific human and social dimension and as the way man does and makes, writes Drucker. I have, I realize, not gotten much beyond specific examples and generali- ties and certainly nowhere near a ‘general theory;’ neither of course haveBucky Fuller and Marshall McCluhan. The work on technology and culture is still to be done. ⁵²

What all of us have missed is Professor Elton Mayo’s call for a new “type of knowledge.”

How can humanity’s capacity of spontaneous co-operation be restored? It is in this area that leadership is most required, a leadership that has noth- ing to do with political ‘isms’ or eloquent speeches. What is wanted is knowledge, a type of knowledge that has escaped us in 200 years of pros- perous development: How to substitute human responsibility for futile strife and hatreds.” ⁵³

The Natural Factors of Governance, Administration, and Communication

When organizations or institutions have a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective feedback communication system that enables its members, constituents, or citizens to participate meaningfully within their time and energy levels with their opinions in interaction to queries from their leaders/ representatives in symbolic dialogue, three “natural” and favorable administrative dynamics spontaneously tend to occur.

First, diagnosis (the first step in the administrative process) of organizational and institutional problems is improved, leading to more effective decision-making in the future.

Second, learning (through the dynamics of the Socratic Method) is improved for individuals participating, the organization, and society, and all move toward being better able to solve system problems in the future.

Third, peace prospects are improved in organizations and institutions because democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective communication processes are therapeutic in nature and tend toward a reduction of tensions and a resolution of conflicts in the future.

There is an organizational concept that we have come to call the “natural factors.” Whenever anyone organizes anything, he or she should try to utilize as many “natural

factors” as possible. Natural factors might include tasks and role assignments which are considered by those participating as being, for example: fun, interesting, mean- ingful, constructive, inspiring, important, profitable, personally supporting, mentally healthful, physically healthful, prestigious, and power-giving. These are energy-giv- ing rather than energy-depleting tasks and role assignments. Governors should also try to organize assignments in such a way that people are enabled to accomplish their tasks and roles spontaneously with a minimum of direction from superiors. Natural factors are important in achieving this kind of organizational climate. As we have said, the most desirable and efficient organizational and cultural climates are those in which people are self-motivated and self-controlled in constructive interdependence to the maximum extent possible.

People should be enabled to perform their organizational tasks and role assign- ments naturally, i.e., no one should have to tell people or leaders “what to do”; they should just tend to do it because it is the natural, spontaneous thing to do. It’s like paddling a canoe. It’s a lot easier if you plan your trip so that you find yourself going downstream, rather than find yourself trying to go upstream against a stiff current. There is a lot of difference in the expenditure of energy and the likelihood of success. In addition, the threat of disaster if you suddenly lose your paddle is significantly different.

These natural factors are performed by people for intrinsic personal reasons. Natural factors tend to provide the organizational dynamics that move the organization sponta- neously toward solving its problems and anticipating or adapting to changes in its internal or external environments. Since administrative theory itself is defined as the search for those same dynamics, we have come full circle.

We believe that when an organization, institution, or society has a democratic, open, participative, reliable, viable, anonymous, routine, and objective communica- tion system (and most organizations and institutions in our society and in the world today do not have such a system), natural favorable organizational dynamics occur. These tend to move the organization, institution, or society toward solving its prob- lems, and anticipating or adapting to changes in its internal or external environment. At least three natural organizational dynamics occur in the presence of such a feed- back communication system.

Diagnosis of Problems is Improved

When an organization establishes a routine feedback communication system, the data generated provide a diagnostic tool to decision making. Theoretically, better diagno- sis of system and organizational problems leads to better theories and decisions in the administrative process of Diagnose, Theorize, Decide, Accomplish, and Review as defined earlier in the Administrative Process.

For example, when leaders of large organizations or bureaucracies have a reliable feedback communication system, they may perceive that their colleagues or constitu- ents want to go through “Door A” on some issue. The leaders may know, however, through their knowledge or expertise, that the better course of action is through “Door B.” This is an organizational dysfunction, an imbalance between perceptions of lead- ers and constituents; it happens frequently in organizations. Since most leaders have no feedback communication system, they often make decisions based only on their own perceptions of the “facts.” When this happens, there is often organizational tur- moil, because that may not be the way their constituents see the problem at all. (It should be noted that often the “facts” as perceived by leaders are correct. Leaders usually have more reliable data on which to base a decision than others, since they occupy a “focal point of information” in the organization in which other people fun- nel them information.)

Most officials and leaders of organizations are responsible and are trying to do a good job as they see it. When leaders have an adequate feedback system, they perceive the dysfunction earlier and react naturally and spontaneously, by bringing their ratio- nale to their colleagues or constituents. Why? Because from their point of view, their people are “misinformed” and “don’t have the facts,” so, being responsible leaders, they issue a press release, or a report, or they just go out and talk to their people. After a period of time, subsequent feedback will show one of two possibilities, for purposes of this explanation. First, it may show that the people want to go through “Door B,” where the leaders wanted to go in the first place. That is, theoretically, the leaders conveyed their rationales to their people, and their people agreed. Under our repre- sentative form of government, which is pervasive in both the public and private sec- tors, the leader then grabs the tactical, short-range “legal” lever of power, which he or she controls as “representative,” and turns it and both the leader and his or her people then go through “Door B,” and everyone is happy. But notice if the same leader had tried to take the same people through the same doorway at a point in time earlier than their “consciousness” or “consensus” or “Zeitgeist” would have indicated was appro- priate, there would have been hostility and tensions released into the group because the people were not ready for that action at that point in time.

Thus a leader can make the right decision, based on the right facts, but apply it at the wrong time, and fail as grandly as if he or she had made the wrong decision, based on the wrong facts. Timing is a necessary ingredient of decision making in all organizations, and timing depends on feedback. Leaders must not only ask, “Is this the right decision, based on the right facts?” They must also ask, “Is this the right time for this decision?”

On the other hand, subsequent feedback may show that the people are still deter- mined to go through “Door A.” At this point, another “natural dynamic” occurs (natural in the sense that no one has to tell the leader; the leader will tend to do it “naturally”). The leader asks the question: “Did the people hear me?” If the judgment is “No,” he or she merely tries again. Why? Because from the leader’s point of view the people are still “misinformed” and “they don’t have the facts.” But if the answer is “Yes,” the people know the issue and the rationale, but they have concluded they must go through “Door A,” then the leader, like Julius Caesar, faces the Rubicon and has to make an irreversible commitment and decision. He or she has the tactical, short range, “legal” power to take people through “door B” where they don’t want to However, any leader of any organization, big or small, who tries to take people where they don’t want to go, is treading on thin ice. If the leader takes them through “door B” under those conditions of perception (i.e., the leader knows they don’t want to go there, and the people know the leader knows they don’t want to go there) then we call this phenomenon an act of “statesmanship.” Then, if the leader is successful and every- thing works out just the way he or she predicted, people say, “Mr. or Ms. Leader, you were right, we were wrong. We didn’t understand then, but we understand now. We forgive you for doing that which we opposed; you are still our leader. In fact we will honor you with the title—statesman or stateswoman.”

But if the leader fails under those conditions of perception, it is a mark against the leader’s record. If the leader is an elected official, come election time, the people weigh the good marks against the bad. They either remove the leader from office, or allow the leader to remain, based on their perception of his or her overall performance. If the leader is not an elected official, such as might be the case with a bishop or minister appointed over a group or congregation by others, then the Theory of Authority comes into play which says, “Those who govern derive their power from the consent of the governed.” The way it works is: the leader calls a meeting, and the people don’t come; the leader asks for service, and the people don’t provide it; the leader asks for money, and the people don’t give it. That is the way people control leaders over whom they apparently have no control. They merely remove their consent to be governed in which case the leader may soon become extinct symbolically as a leader, because he or she will have no followers. If the ineffective leader cannot be removed by the people, then organizational resistance increases at ever-mounting economic and social costs to the organization and its constituents.

Learning is Expanded

When communication processes in organizations are developed which enable indi- viduals to answer questions, contribute their opinions, and respond to the ideas of their officials, leaders, and others, those individuals participating are thrust into the dynamics of the Socratic Method. It is a primary source of individual creativity. Cre- ativity is a process of bringing some new idea into an individual’s mind that wasn’t there before. It is “learning.”

The steps of the Socratic method are awareness, frustration, insight, and verifica- tion. In the process of pondering questions, and making decisions, the individual achieves insights and grows in his or her abilities and capacities and learns. The fourth step, verification, is a group effort. The individual asks, “Do my ideas work? Are they practical? How do they stack up against the thinking of other people?” In the words of religious educators Howard Ellis and Ted McEachern:

What is occurring is a process—a doing, specifically a process interrelating a person and his world, bringing new meaning into the human situation. ⁵⁴

Learning through the Socratic Method begins to answer the identity questions which face everyone. “Who am I? What is my role in life? Where do I fit in?” Every human being needs answers to these questions. Every human being who is interested in doing so should be permitted and encouraged to contribute his or her most pre- cious resource, his or her own thinking, to help fashion everyone’s world of today and tomorrow in an ongoing process of organization and civilization building.

Peace is Enhanced and Tensions are Reduced

Finally, as essential as it is to develop programming to enable organizations and soci- ety to improve diagnosis and learning, this third dynamic may be of greatest importance. When people are provided viable opportunities to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and future, contribute their ideas and opinions, respond to the ideas and opinions of others, and respond to the queries of their leaders/representatives toward the solution of those problems which interest and concern them, the process is therapeutic. The process tends to lead toward peace. First, it tends to reduce stress and create peace of mind for those individuals participating. In the last analysis, peace of mind is the final sanctuary of every person. If an individual can capture a little peace of mind in his or her day-to-day routine, the world isn’t all that hostile. As more and more people in an organization achieve peace of mind, this leads to organiza- tional peace. When more and more organizations achieve peace, this leads to institu- tional peace. And when more and more institutions achieve peace, humanity will finally achieve the peace of civilization itself. Therefore, the social processes and tech- nology themselves that enable people to participate meaningfully with their thinking may well be more important than the actual data which are tabulated and reported. That is, the knowledge by people that they are enabled by their leaders to participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their lives, public and private, is therapeutic, reduces tensions, and leads to peace. This is independent of the responses of the partici- pants that might reveal consensus or no consensus on an issue.

Peace then is a process that springs upward, spontaneously, from groups of people, large and small, and is not truly a process that can be controlled from the top down by force or coercion. We know this is true because as soon as the force is removed under those conditions, there is no more semblance of peace. What the world is trying to achieve is the spontaneous collaboration of people toward their organizational and soci- etal objectives. This is best achieved in a free, open, and democratic culture of which we are a part and toward which the world itself is naturally aspiring and progressing as it learns new theories and administrative styles and as civilization matures.

Participative processes then, like voting, are therapeutic. Occasionally some per- sons say, “The issues of today are so complex that the average American citizen cannot even understand the issues, let alone make intelligent decisions at the polls. Only officials and experts trained in the area can make these kinds of decisions.” It might then follow that we could do away with the voting process and save all that money. But if we hadn’t had a viable voting process, it is not likely that our nation would have survived the first 200 years. The democratic process is therapeutic and tends to lead toward peace. People who lose or whose candidate did not win in an election can accept their failure to “get their way” because they had a viable, fair, and equal chance to participate just like everyone else.

When we develop programming in our organizations and society that reduces stress and leads toward peace among those individuals participating, we are really improving individual mental health. When we develop programming which tends to improve the mental health of many individuals participating, we are really improving community mental health, i.e., we are improving the happiness of people. And hap- piness is one of the fundamental reasons we form governments everywhere (public and private)—for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” ⁵⁵

Therefore, programs designed to help people feel better about themselves, their roles in their organizations and society, and their relationships with their leaders in public and private organizations in pursuit of their own agenda, may be just as important as physical programs, such as roads, schools, public utilities, police protection, military security, and economic prosperity. These physical programs are “life and liberty” issues. Governments and organizations at all levels have been nearly obsessed with these issues since the found- ing of the nation over 200 years ago and perhaps rightly so. Beginning now and increas- ingly in the future, however, our nation and its people, as well as the other nations in the world and their people, must devote more time, energy, and resources toward those human problems which directly involve the “happiness” of people—the pursuit of which is one of their “inalienable rights” as enumerated in The Declaration of Independence in 1776. Webster defines an inalienable right as one that is, “Incapable of being alienated, sur- rendered, or transferred. That is inalienable which one cannot give away or dispose of evenif one wishes.” This then, is not only a right of American citizens as they sweep past their 200th year anniversary under the United States Constitution begun in 1787. We believe it to be also a declaration of the right of every citizen in the world whatever their present state of suppressed political rights may be!

All nations in the world, as they mature and grow in their political and societal contexts, will move from the authoritarian (or totalitarian) administrative style, which has been the predominant organizing principle of the past and present, to the partici- pative processes of a free and democratic society. These are cultural processes that can only be guided; they cannot be stopped—in the United States or elsewhere. These cultural processes are moving naturally and dynamically everywhere in the world to- day. They need not be exported or forced on nations whose governments are closed at present and have not yet become democratic, because the processes are evolving in the world—naturally! ⁵⁶

Conclusion to Administrative Theories

The Power of Values

We have surveyed our principal Administrative Theories. The 10 theories are like vertebrae in the spinal column of civilization.

Civilization builders are like all builders. They need building materials as well as builders. They need a building blueprint or plan. They need energies and fuel to inspire, direct, and complete the process of building.Values provide direction, energy and inspiration for civilization builders.

Civilization builders are also clarifiers of values. By their work of clarifying citi- zens’ values, they release civic energies. They mobilize political power from the people, galvanize the political arts, and awaken civic inspiration and determination. Values are the energy focal points of civic ethics and morality. They are the lights that prevent culture from being degrading and destructive. They build social capital. Values are the moral core or spine of the prevailing beliefs and opinions of individuals, groups, nations, and of civilization itself. They are like switches on a railroad.

Organizations from families to nations often experience moral crises in their lives. They find that together they are approaching a decision-making junction. At that moment, the cumulative effect of all the information and values held becomes operative. The moral perceptions of individuals, the consciousness of groups, the paradigm, meta-perspective, or Zeitgeist of civilization (which is their “prophecy”)will determine the choice made and direction taken at every junction.

An organization that is evolving is, at any moment, the sum of its previous value- laden (“moral”) choices and decisions. The sequence of value choices made by the organization over time determines its future—for an individual, group, or society. For they tend to be self-fulfilling. As scientist Elton Byrd said, “People and their institu- tions, therefore, are more the creators of their own destiny than the victims of it.”⁵⁷

Values are also a moral force; they tell us right from wrong. They derive from our experiences and from the very depths of our God spirit. They set the ethos, direction, and mood within which we live and interact with others. And like the tide, they prevail—in the end.

Values are also the source of moral authority for the individual. This, in turn, is the only force capable of transcending or changing all legal authority. As we stated before, this is true whenever moral authority confronts legal authority, individually or corporately, publicly or privately. This covers the range from a parent-child relation- ship to the affairs of the state in its relationship with its citizens. People will make sacrifices and endure great hardships for their values. They will fight for them. They will even die for them. So authority does not lie within some leader. It does not lie within some office, title, task, knowledge, or with property or things. Rather, it’s in all of us. “Authority always lies with him to whom it applies …. Authority is just another way of talking about the willingness of people to submit to collaborative systems.”⁵⁸

Values are directly related to the identity questions of this century. Who am I? Where do I fit in? What is my role in life? As humanity evolves to a planetary con- sciousness and participates in community and civilization building, individuals within it strive to fulfill their needs. These needs have been described as hierarchi- cal: physical, security, social, ego fulfilling, and self-actualizing (Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”). Maslow later postulated meta-actualizing which approaches a spiritual effort to raise humanity and civilization itself to its highest potential. This can be done through the institutions of government, business, economics, civic, and religious organizations. These institutions, in turn, require organization, direction, and administration.

Historically, the basic organizing principle of the human race in the past and present has been and still is the “authoritarian hierarchy,” i.e., (A>B>C>D>… etc.) authoritarianism and dictatorships; it provides no checks or balances in governance and minimum societal incentives. Our research indicates that the basic organizing prin- ciple of the human race in the future will be the “participative heterarchy,” i.e., (A>B>C>A) freedom and democracy, i.e, (Administrators over Bureaucrats over Citizens over Administrators); it provides checks and balances in governance and maximum societal incentives. The organizational question of the century may well be: How can we move from the closed, hierarchical, authoritarian administrative style of the past and present to the open, heterarchical, participative administrative style of the emerg- ing future? Values are at the heart of that search! And every individual in civilization today must answer the implied question that has been posed to every citizen in every age: “Am I going to be a part of the problem, or am I going to be a part of the solution to humanity’s spiritual quest for a better future?” This is effected by the individual’s response to these questions: “What are my values today, and which civic, corporate, organizational, and societal choices will I make today for the future?” Civilization builders are those who have asked themselves searchingly, “What do I really think is ‘the Good Society’? What would be the Ideal Society?” From this reflection comes the associated insight: “What would be the best imaginable citizen for the world today?” And, “Am I such a person? If not, why not?”

Most nations in the world today have discovered the truth of market forces. They have found that private property ownership inspires civic effort. We believe that the free enterprise system energizes social change and healing. Coupled with a viable democracy as its political base, free enterprise best provides the incentives to indi- viduals to work and produce goods and services to share in their society. The central- ism of communist totalitarian states has a critical, and, it turns out, fatal problem at the production end. It is unable to generate such incentives. It is unable to manage the complexity of production that a market economy can.

The way is dimly seen, but it seems to us that today the following areas in the Behavioral Sciences are of key interest to the solution of these problems:

Creativity Leadership

Followership (followers do make constructive contributions to organizations) Conflict Resolution

Fact Finding Attitude/Opinion Formation Individual Responsibility

Individual Growth and Development Synergy

Teamwork Empowerment

Organizational Effectiveness

Organization Development Good Government Civilization Building.

It is important to note that all of the above concepts rest on communication! And communication itself rests on feedback systems and iterations of communication. We think the required communication can be best achieved in the future through use of Many-To-Many Communication technology (how) in concert with new understand- ings of administrative theory (why) which are emerging in the world.

It all has something to do also, we believe, with a “meme.” This is a new word coined by Richard Dawkins, in his books The Selfish Gene (1976) and The Blind Watch Maker (1986). A “meme” is a derivative of the two words “memory” and “gene.” It denotes that culture, society, and civilizations have their counterpart to that nugget of coded information at the cellular level called a “gene.” ⁵⁹

One major function of a gene is to transmit biological information from one organism to another. A second major function is to carry forward the work of evolu- tion through mutation, i.e., by change. Mutation is the way growth, novelty, and change express themselves in the gene.

Similarly, social ideas and values are carried forward into the future of a culture, society, and civilization by memes and mutated socially as the process of civilization building continues.

Next, we explore dynamics related to administrative theory which we have come recently to believe are significantly different. We believe they can properly be named— civilization theory.

Chapter 1: General Administrative Theories

The Basic Attitude in Civilization Building

The Theory of Learning

The Theory of Leadership

Conclusion

The Theory of Authority

The Theory of Politics

Increasing Understanding and Collaboration

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The Administrative Process (a Definition)

The Helping Professions*

The Zeitgeist Principle

Society Seeks Its Self

The Zeitgeist—the Supreme Governor

Apprehending the Zeitgeist

Zeitgeist Communication Defined

The Right to Be Heard

The Natural Factors of Governance, Administration, and Communication

Diagnosis of Problems is Improved

Learning is Expanded

Peace is Enhanced and Tensions are Reduced

Conclusion to Administrative Theories

The Power of Values