Some Perspectives for L earning Organizations - CiteSeerX

[175]

ACTION RESEARCH

Some Perspectives forL earning Organizations

FRANK P. SHERWOOD

Washington, D.C., Public Affairs CenterUniversity of Southern California

The nature and origins of "action research " are described. In its current form,action research is a technique for conducting applied research with the

collaboration of a client organization for the purpose of intervention. Implica-tions for organizations which pursue learning and development are explored.

As is clearly evident in the literature, the idea of actionresearch is not a new one. Its intellectual origins are ratherunanimously traced to Kurt Lewin, whose contributions tothe field of social psychology in the United States occurredprimarily in the 1940s (Marrow, 1969).

It is interesting, however, that French and Bell (1973: 91 1ff.) urge that we consider two other names as importantcontributors to this approach. One might be anticipated-John Dewey. It was he who put the ideas of the scientificmethod in terms that could be utilized in day-to-dayproblem-solving and learning. But the other name is some-thing of a surprise. It is that of a practicing administrator,John Collier, who served as U.S. Commissioner of IndianAffairs from 1933 to 1945. French and Bell say that, &dquo;Collierfound that effecting changes in ethnic relations was an

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 8 No. 2, August 1976@1976 Sage Publications, Inc.

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://aas.sagepub.com/

[176]

extremely difficult process and required joint effort on thepart of the scientist (researcher), the administrator (practi-tioner), and the layman (client).&dquo; They quote from an articlewritten by Collier for the journal, Social Research, in 1945:

Principle seven I would call the first and the last: that researchand then more research is essential to the program, that in theethnic field research can be made a tool of action essential to allthe other tools, indeed, that it ought to be the master tool. Butwe had in mind a particular kind of research, or, if you will

particular conditions. We had in mind research impelled fromcentral areas of needed action. And since action is by nature notonly specialized but also integrative to more than the specialties,our needed research must be of an integrative sort. Again, sincethe findings of research must be carried into effect by theadministrator and the layman, and must be criticized by themthrough their experience, the administrator and the layman mustthemselves participate creatively in the research, impelled as it isfrom their own area of need [Collier, 1945; emphasis added] .

Though the name of John Collier has now been generallyforgotten, he wrote as a highly respected, distinguishedpublic administrator of the time. His work in the Bureau ofIndian Affairs was regarded as enlightened, wise, and con-scientious. He was seen as having transformed the Bureaufrom a stagnant t custodian of an isolated and forgottenminority into an organization of social conscience. Un-

fortunately, Collier’s commitment to a monocultural value-namely, that the Indians should be assimilated into thedominant Anglo culture-has obscured his successes as an

administrator and as a leader. In any case, the reference toCollier by French and Bell emphasizes the important pointthat the practicing administrator has a crucial role in the

process.What is the essential idea of action research? How does it

differ from our more traditional research modes?

First, it might be well to reflect on the way in which muchresearch in the social sciences (I do not refer here to the



[177]

physical or natural sciences) is oriented and organized. Mostimportantly, the problem to be studied is identified by theresearcher, and, quite frequently, the problem is framed insuch a way as to take advantage of data already assembled ina library, various agency documents, or a computer. Finally,it is a lonely pursuit, by design, to insure the objectivity ofthe effort. What is then produced is a document assumed tohave value in itself. It is not expected to force action andchange. It is a one-time sweep, episodic at best. Since it

occurs generally outside the system and permits relativelylittle involvement by the parties to the problem, the researchdoes not contribute to the capacity of an organization tolearn and to develop.

It would appear that action research has been conceived as

a polar opposite to these traditional orientations, most

observable in three fundamental ways:

0 As the name implies, it is action-oriented, indeed action-forcing.There is a clear problem orientation, not just of intellectualdimension, but of social and administrative consequence.

Figure 1: Research Participants: A Contmuum



[178]

w It operates on a real-time basis. The research is present-oriented;and throughout its conduct, it is to be expected that new data willbe generated. It would be unthinkable to conceive of an actionresearch project in which the data were &dquo;on the shelf at its

inception.. It is involving, which suggests that the relationship goes both

ways: emphasis tends to be placed on the involvement of theadministrator and the client in the research, but it also has cometo be recognized that the research is similarly involved in theaction. By undertaking research that is real-time and action-oriented, the research himself is no longer the passive observer.His objectivity and professional integrity must be found withinhimself, not in the role he occupies.

The observance of these conditions provides a collectivedimension to the learning process. Where, in the traditionalsystem, the learning is largely restricted to the researcher anddependent on his motivations for any broader dissemination,action research by its nature is collaborative. Because it doesgo beyond the individual, action research has the potential tocontribute significantly to organization learning-aboutwhich we know very little and practice even less.

In its development over the years, action research has

tended generally to be associated with small group activity,more recently with team-building in the organization devel-opment movement. It has been the conceptual underpinningof the human relations laboratories, in which participantshave been invoked to deal in real time, to use the data

generated among those present, in seeking to understandintragroup relations.

There are many useful materials on action research in thesmall group. The concern of this paper, therefore, is with

other possibilities that have received less attention in the

literature. There are three with which I will seek to deal:

. action research as a strategy for the helping institution,

. action research as an organizationwide intervention in organiza-tion change efforts, and

. action research as a means of leadership development.



[179]

Obviously, the three are not mutually exclusive. A helpinginstitution, such as a university, may assume responsibilityfor action research efforts in an organization seeking to

improve its performance. In that process, individuals mayhave personal development experiences that will contributesignificantly to the enhancement of their leadership com-petences. While thus recognizing these linkages, it neverthe-less seems that the purposes of this paper will best be served

by treating each of the possibilities separately.

A STRATEGY FOR THE HELPING INSTITUTION

Though there are other institutions that might be includedin the category of &dquo;helping institution,&dquo; it is the universityand its subordinate parts which most immediately and

consistently come to mind. In essentially all nations (ingreater or lesser degree) the university is seen as an importantsocietal resource. There is, at least, the idealistic hope thatthe intellectual resources so painfully assembled will bedirected toward solving society’s problems. There is an

assumption, too, that the university will be sufficiently in thesocial mainstream to have an assurance that the learning itprovides its students will, in fact, prepare them to cope witha changing world. And, as adults face these changes, theylook to the universities also for more learning and more helpin coping with new demands.

Yet universities all over the world find it difficult to copewith these expectations. Universities are learning institutionsonly in the abstract; they are remarkably inept in diagnosingneeds, accepting change, and transforming themselves to

handle new situations. They are, in many respects, prisonersof an elitist, medieval tradition in which learning is regardedas something special and privileged. Further, the reward

system in the university has remained relatively constant overthe many centuries. The professor is honored and rewardedfor the respect and recognition he or she can secure from



[180]

professional colleagues, and this forces the professor to

concentrate on research and publication that will commandattention in a limited and specialized fraternity. Most

discouragingly, it is striking how even the newest uni-versities-in both developed and lesser developed countries-quickly assimilate these values. We should make no mistake:there are profound difficulties in moving the university’s veryconsiderable resources toward a real-time, problem-solvingactivity.

At least in the United States, the collaborative world

which John Collier described in 1945 remains the isolatedcircumstance. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate thehostility that exists between the academic and the practicingadministrator, not to mention a clientele which is oftenalienated from both worlds. Further, the blame seems to bemutual. The academic communicates his elitism and also hisscorn for those who are less comfortable with ideas and mustoften struggle with pedestrian concerns. On the other hand,few administrators seem to have internalized Collier’s com-mitment to research as a requirement for problem-solving.They force academics into isolation by accusations ofdilettantism and irrelevance. By their words and actions,administrators often seem to belittle the very things for

which the university stands. In this environment of low trust,collaboration often becomes manipulation. The academicseeks to use a government grant or program to further his

special interest; the government official makes so manydemands and imposes such controls that the intellectualexcitement of the effort is often lost.

It is easy, of course, to recite the problems involved indeveloping a university stance that is more purposefullycommitted to societal problem-solving. Yet these obstaclesneed emphasis because the assumption continues that a

transformation can occur with relative ease. I do not believethat to be true; and I suspect change will come incrementally,if at all.



[181]

Action research, coupled with amendments in the organi-zation arrangements of most universities, comprises such anincremental strategy. To deal with the organizational dimen-sion first, it seems fairly clear that the traditional units of theuniversity-namely, the teaching departments-will not easilyand soon change their reward structures. The university willtherefore need to create alternative units whose mission isnot degree education and who are, therefore, free to honordifferent values and to construct different reward systems.With the addition of such units, the university will look evenmore disorderly than it has in the past. And the structure ofrewards in these new units is likely to involve more money incompensation, as there is no real way to rival the status ofthe professor. While many types of units have been created invarious universities, they have not fulfilled the conditions

suggested above. They have not been recognized by theuniversities as having a fully legitimate claim on resources;rather, the tendency to regard such units as errant orphanshas been further accentuated by their hand-to-mouth

financing. The problem is further exacerbated as such unitsbecome dependent on single-source financing, thus losing theindependence that is so vital to all university undertakings.

If the alternative organization were to have sufficient

independence to find its own opportunities for service, howcan we be sure that it would not return to the same kind ofreward structure and patterns of behavior that characterizethe traditional university? The answer, of course, is that wecannot be sure. One way to deal with the problem, however,is to build into the institution a doctrine that is based onaction research principles. To put it in negative terms, thismeans that the doctrine would not support the unilateralinterest of a member of the research staff, would not approvework on a problem that either had been resolved or had longsince passed into limbo, and, most importantly, would notaccept a design that provided little or no opportunity fororganization learning.



[182]

When a doctrine is articulated and rewards are dispensedat least partly in terms of the observance of that doctrine,there may be the possibility of securing changed behaviors. Itappears that action research is both tangible enough in itsbasic precepts and encompassing enough in its conceptualframework to become an operationally useful mechanism.Stated positively, an organization dedicated to action re-

search would be systematically testing its allocation ofresources in terms of the opportunity and capacity to

contribute to identifiable improvement in societal func-

tioning ; would be experimental in its approaches, recognizingthat the experience will produce more learning which may, inturn, lead to further changes; would work in a collaborativemode both with practicing administrators and clientele

groups, both in problem identification and in research

implementation; and would seek to provide growthopportunities, not only to its own staff, but to all those

involved in the effort.Of all the ideas that are central to this approach,

collaboration is perhaps the most important. Collaborationmeans that esoteric ideas will be discovered early in the

process of problem identification. That is an importantcontrol, and it must be remembered that learning itself isdevelopmental and typically leads to more learning. That isthe kind of experience many should share. It is the means bywhich organizations and society can become more effectivein coping with a rapidly changing world.

ORGANIZATIONWIDE INTERVENTION IN

ORGANIZATION CHANGE EFFORTS

Frustrations are found not only in the helping institutions.Client t organizations also discover that their efforts to

improve almost inevitably uncover new problems and

dilemmas. None of the panaceas which have emerged over theyear has provided the leader any assurance that move X will



[183]

definitively produce consequence Y. And when consequenceY is produced, it typically brings a host of other problemsthat had not been anticipated.

The interest in new organization wide approaches today isperhaps a consequence of two disappointments in recent

years:

. the failure of rational allocation strategies (the Planning-Programming-Budgeting movement) either to produce allocationefficiencies or to affect significantly the way in which publicbusiness was conducted; and

. the tendency of the organization development movement to limititself to a team-building strategy-essentially, therefore, workingin small groups and on relations among groups. There has been

increasing criticism that OD has tended to deny the existence ofwhat Phillip Selznick (1966: 181) called an &dquo;organizationcharacter&dquo;-that is, a set of norms and values which permeates theorganization, provides important cues for behavior, and cannot besignificantly changed at either the group or intergroup levels. Anextreme criticism of the team-building type of intervention is thatit tends to operate on &dquo;closed system&dquo; premises-namely, that thegroup has a life of its own relatively unaffected by the norms andvalues of the organization.

While at first these two disappointments might seem quiteseparate from each other, they have, in effect, elicited tworesponses which are common in their commitment to a

generalized strategy of organizational learning.We have retreated from a presumption that we can pursue

a program of rational-comprehensive decision-making, in themanner of PPBS. Donald Schon (1971), as did Charles

Lindblom (particularly in his essay, &dquo;The Science of

’Muddling Through,’ &dquo; written more than a decade ago), hashelped us to appreciate once again the serious limitations ofan approach that promotes the concentration of knowledgeand presumes a capacity to allocate values for a highlycomplex system. What has now emerged in the federal

government in the United States is a most healthy interest in



[184]

program evaluation. Essentially, this is a learning strategy.Far more systematically than we have ever before done, weare seeking to learn from our experiences. We want to bespecific about what we anticipated, what we got, and whatthis says about what new behaviors we ought to seek in thefuture. It is a far less presumptuous approach to public affairsand has, in some cases, provided astonishing insights. Further,we have come to understand that even monitoring (pre-sumably, a more mechanical form of evaluation) is verydifficult-and filled with value questions-in complex pro-grams. But the main point is that the emphasis is on

organizational learning. Such approaches are consistent witha basic thesis of Schon-that we should be less heroic in thefirst steps toward change and a good deal more conscientiousin reflecting on the consequences of the steps we do take intoa turbulent environment. It should not be inferred that

program evaluation is action research. To the contrary, it

generally is not. But it is of interest here because, like actionresearch, it places emphasis on organizational learning.

The other push toward organizational learning comeslargely from the pioneering work of Neely Gardner, who hassought to broaden the concept of action research in orderthat it may become a means of OD intervention in the

organization as a whole. The method is one which con-centrates on the collaborative discovery of organizationalproblems and the means for dealing with them; in this sense,it is particularly contributory to the process of organizationlearning.

Gardner makes clear that his organizationwide applica-tions of action research do not differ from classic premises.In doing so, he particularly emphasizes the significance ofcollaborative involvement, as the following passages indicate:

Lewin’s contributions to normative re-education strategies ofchanging stemmed from his vision of the required relationshipbetween action training and research, and for him this meantcollaborative relationships between researchers, educators, and



[185]

practitioners. In Action Training and Research the scientist andtrainer (interveners) are part of the field to be examined, the~~~ ~’Mfen~e~ a~ pa~~ 0/’ ~e /jfeM fo ~e e~a~~e~, weproblem and the experimental solution.

The Rogerian notion that human beings will strive for self-enhancement on terms that they understand is most important tothe strategies used in action training and research. It involves aprocess of involvement, and the development of &dquo;ownership&dquo; ofthe product of the activity because the individual perceives theproposed activity to be enhancing to the perceived self. [Gardner,1974a: 107] ]

The juxtaposition of action training and research is not anaccident in Gardner’s writings. It is his means of givingfurther emphasis to the point that the process of change isreally one of learning. Further, it is the special burden of thetrainer to help people &dquo;freeze&dquo; on new behaviors that seem

appropriate to new situations. This Gardner view of actionresearch as a learning process seems substantially differentfrom the survey-feedback approach, which also may beconsidered an organizationwide intervention and was pio-neered by the Institute of Social Research at the Universityof Michigan. Classically, these survey research ventures havemade sharp distinctions between the &dquo;men of science&dquo; andthe clientele as the objects of research. As a consequence,there is a substantial difference in the degree to which thetwo principles identified by Gardner above are honored inthe survey-feedback process and in his version of action

research.

How, then, does the Gardner approach work? Since thedetails are well articulated in his article (and, to some extent,in a recent book-see Gardner, 1974b), we seek in this paperonly to provide underscoring to those points that qualify it asaction research and also an organizationwide intervention.

In the first place, there is a value premise that Gardnerfeels it is highly important to make explicit. As he says, &dquo;All

clients should be aware that AT and R has a participativethrust and that by its very nature it tends to enhance the



[186]

position of the individual and to diffuse sources of power.&dquo;This norm is an important one to contemplate. It means thatthe effective organization is one which uses the potential ofits members fully, and a reason for the action research is tohelp the system &dquo;learn&dquo; how people can work most effec-tively with each other and in their transactions with theenvironment. Without some agreement as to the need for afull contribution on the part of each member of the

organization, there is no point in implementing a programdesigned to promote organizationwide involvement.Though the intent is to secure change in the organization

as a whole, there should be no misunderstanding that thekinds of group skills which attach to team-building interven-tions are less important in the Gardner version of action

research. At all points in the process, it is necessary to bringpeople together in small collectivities to develop a workingcontract, to identify data needs, to analyze materials, and toinvent solutions to the problems that have been raised. As anillustration, Gardner ( 1974a: 109) notes that:

There are many ways to collect data: group meetings, observa-tion, interviews, and questionnaires. For a small population,meetings, team-building sessions or workshops are useful. For

large projects involving communities, corporate structures, or

major jurisdictions, a combination of methods may be called for.

In speaking of the analysis of data, he gives great emphasis tothe use of workshops, observing, &dquo;By the end of the

workshop session participants should be able to determinethat significant action options seem attainable, which onesrequire further exploration, and which ones must be de-ferred.&dquo; Thus, it is clear that anyone practicing this type ofaction research must have substantial skills in working withgroups-which, undoubtedly, is one of the basic reasons

Gardner was motivated to write his most recent book, GroupLeadership.



[187]

While high emphasis is therefore placed on group process,the numbers and composition of groups tend to comprehendthe whole organization, rather than specific work unitswithin the organization. In the initial effort in building aclimate of openness, for example, there is a need to work ingroups, but not necessarily groups organized according to thework units in the organization. Put another way, the intent isto build trust and openness in the total organization and notin a particular work unit. The group then becomes a means ofdisaggregating the whole-a means to the end, not the end initself.

This type of action research also embraces aspects oftraditional research, in that efforts are made to use ques-tionnaires and other types of survey techniques to secureinsights from as many members of the organization as

possible. Again, in order to provide an illustration of suchorganization sensing, we quote from Gardner ( 1974a: 110):

Questionnaires serve a number of useful purposes in the AT andR process. They communicate and educate; they let the re-

spondents know that the data generated are being used; they helpaction researchers (a) sort out and dispel pluralistic ignorance and(b) conventional wisdom.In most of the organizations with which I have worked, theinterview has been conducted on a sampling basis, but in theadministration of the questionnaires researchers have attemptedto obtain a 100 percent sample, with the achieved sample runningabout 90 percent.... It is my perception that the broader thebase of participation in all stages of the process, the more likely isuseful change to occur.

Thus, it may be seen that the methods used are not at allnew. It is both in the purpose of their uses and thecombinations involved that a new and interesting possibilityhas appeared. The purpose, of course, is the advancement oforganization leaming-a point which Gardner (1974a: 114)makes quite clear in the closing paragraph of his article:



[188]

At this point in my experiences with action training and research,I am somewhat hopeful about its use as a strategy of change andtend to agree with Claude Faucheux, the French social psychol-ogist, who says, &dquo;In action training and research you not onlycollect information but you shape, create, and invent socialstructure through the participation of people. One cannot saymore, action research is bound to help.&dquo;

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

We now return to the case of John Collier and his role as aleader in helping the Bureau of Indian Affairs of his daybecome a learning organization. Collier made the basic pointthat the leader had to participate in the research, as it was hismanagerial problem to which the research was directed. In asense, Collier’s comment is another version of a familiar

injunction, &dquo;War is too important to leave to the generals.&dquo;While the degree to which the Bureau of Indian Affairsbecame a learning organization cannot be stated with

certainty today, it was known at the time as an organizationwhich sought innovation and took some risks. One thingseems quite clear: without John Collier’s commitment to

research and learning, it is doubtful that the organizationwould have changed from its pre-1933 orientations. Becauseour organizations do tend basically to be hierarchical, weshould not underestimate the importance of personal leader-ship in modeling the kind of behavior that is desired for theorganization as a whole. Put simply, if we want learning andchanging organizations, we must have learning and changingleaders. It is really quite inconceivable that an organizationheaded by non-learners (of which there are, unfortunately,many) will somehow, miraculously, be a learning organiza-tion.

Thus, in our leadership development efforts, we must putmuch greater stress on building predispositions toward, andskills in, continued learning. The task is not an easy one. It isnot a matter of gaining new knowledge, which itself may



[189]

prove irrelevant or useless when a new situation arises.

Rather, it is the matter of inculcating a habit, style, and,above all, the personal confidence to treat new challenges anddemands as new opportunities for personal growth anddevelopment. As has often been said, the goal of executivedevelopment is to prepare people for a future that no one canpredict.

As a consequence, the traditional dichotomy between the&dquo;man of science&dquo; and the practicing administrator should belaid to rest. The administrator ought to feel as comfortable inhis learning competences-and the special skills he brings tothe project-as does the consultant scientist. This is not to

say that the scientist should be denied recognition for hisspecial qualities, but rather to argue for a reciprocity and amutual recognition of the need for each other. Too often, theadministrator has abdicated his responsibility. It is the

consultant who defines the problem, advances the

hypotheses, suggests the research strategy, and systematizesthe findings for organization learning. Not infrequently, thisunilateral demand on the scientist has led to an un-

satisfactory result, suffered because the administrator failedto assume his full responsibility in the partnership. Even inthe best of circumstances, the chances for personal andorganization learning have been minimized by such an

abdication.

Professional education in public administration providesnew opportunities to develop reflective leaders who think ofresearch as part of their job and are, therefore, effective infulfilling their roles as partners in organization learning. Thepossibilities of new approaches appear at two stages: (a)formal course preparation and examination in research

methods, with substantial emphasis on action research

dimensions; and (b) the preparation of a thesis project with abasic orientation toward action research. The two elements

combine, of course-the first contributing to the second,which should provide the major learning.



[190]

To understand fully the implications of action researchemphases for the preparation of reflective leaders, it is

important to consider what happens in the traditional

program. First, there is relatively little attention given to thethesis until the student has completed all of his or her coursework and passed the examinations. Second, the student facesa time imperative which forces the choice of a project forwhich data are already available because he cannot wait forevents to unfold. Third, he is still inveighed to demonstratethat his product is a contribution to new knowledge, ratherthan to his own learning. Finally, the thesis project is

essentially an &dquo;outsider&dquo; experience, in which few data areprovided to the student about his own behavior that may beuseful in future executive roles. Obviously, there are

exceptions to this scenario, particularly in the professionalschools and in such disciplines as anthropology. But all toofrequently the sequence occurs as described above, and a

major opportunity for learning is only modestly exploited.(It should be emphasized that I am talking about learning forexecutive leadership, not for teaching and research roles inthe university.)

In seeking to take full advantage of the learning opportu-nities for leadership growth in the dissertation/project, wehave made the following changes in our procedures at theWashington Public Affairs Center:

w Sequentially, planning for the dissertation/project occurs early;proposals may be presented after the research methods examina-tion has been successfully completed, which is typically a yearbefore all formal course work has been accomplished.

. The test of contribution to knowledge is no longer apphed. Therequirement now is a contribution to the individual, which

changes the terms of the demand but which is no less compelling.

. There is encouragement to work on a project in which the

student is actively and personally involved, most desirably in hiswork. We do not believe absolute objectivity is ever possible; and,for the leader, it is most important to develop as much objectivityas he can in the role of participant.



[191]

. The student is asked to develop a research approach whichgenerally follows the precepts suggested in this paper. In so doing,he is not only asked to be systematic in defining the steps leadingto problem diagnosis and action, but also rigorously to evaluatethe consequences of such change efforts. In this process, he is

urged to solicit and report feedback on his participation,particularly on ways in which he supported or hindered the

change process, with indication of the implications of these datafor his own learning needs as a manager and executive.

Candidly, it must be admitted that the implementation ofthis action research approach to learning at the doctoral levelhas not been easy. While there is virtually unanimous

approval of the basic intent of the effort, it is quite anothermatter to uproot familiar ideas about research. Students areright in their assertion that there are many uncertainties inaction research, which must be defined in part by its

unpredictability. That, however, is the perennial problem ofthe leader; and, if we can help build some interest andcompetence in personal and organizational learning, thebenefits for the society might be very great indeed.

REFERENCES

COLLIER, J. (1945) "United States Indian administration as a laboratory ofethnic relations." Social Relations 12 (May): 275-276.

FRENCH, W. L. and C. H. BELL, Jr. (1973) Organization Development:Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

GARDNER, N. (1974a) "Action training and research: something old and

something new." Public Administration Rev. 34 (March-April): 106-115.

--- (1974b) Group Leadership. Washington, D.C.: National Training & Develop-ment Service Press.

LINDBLOM, C. E. (1959) "The science of ’muddling through’." Public

Administration Rev. 19: 107.

MARROW, A. J. (1969) The Practical Theorist: The Lite and Work of Kurt

Lewin. New York: Basic Books.

SCHON, D. A. (1971) Beyond the Stable State. New York W. W. Norton.SELZNICK, P. (1966) TVA and the Grassroots. New York: Harper & Row. (ong.

published 1949 by Univ. of California Press)



[192]

Frank P. Sherwood is Director of the Washington Public Affairs Center ofthe University of Southern California, where he holds appointment asProfessor of Public Administration. His service with USC began In 1951and has been broken only by five years as the founding director of theFederal Executive Institute, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1968-1973. Much ofthe stimulus for this article came from a consulting assignment at theInstitute of Public Service, University of Bahia, Brazil, in 1975. ProfessorSherwood is author or coauthor of several books, including AdministrativeOrganization. He was president of the American Society for PublicAdministration in 1973-1974.

ERRATA

In the article by Barry M. Mitnrck, &dquo;A Typology of Conceptions of thePubhc Interest,&dquo; which appeared in the May 1976 (Vol. 8, No. 1) issue ofAdministration & Society, the following errata should be noted:

Page 12, hne 9 from the bottom should read: &dquo;group or organizational, andsystemic. For convenience we&dquo;

Page 14, hne 10 from the bottom should read: &dquo;(ideational, or individual

group, or organizational, systemic);&dquo;Page 15, line 2 under A. Normative should read: &dquo;type of holder (the

ideational level); they reflect persisting and ultimate values.&dquo;

Page 17, hne 5 under C. Communal should read: &dquo;that whole (cf. Cochran,1974) This category may be&dquo;

Page 19, hne 3 under B. Pluralistic Aggregation should read: &dquo;values. We

may distinguish participatory and passlVe/1OveStl-&dquo;Page 20, line 4 under 2. Passive or investlgatory should read: &dquo;tion of

uttlItles;2 (2) confZicttial majoritarian-a decision rule&dquo; &dquo;

Page 21, after the paragraph which begins &dquo;(b) Non-rule-determined.&dquo; &dquo;

there should be one line of space before the next paragraph begms.Page 23, line 16 should read: &dquo;inhibit deviatmg language and actions (cf.

Downs, 1962).&dquo;Page 25, hne 15 from the bottom should read: &dquo;consensus noted above,

which may (or may not) be codified&dquo;

Page 27, note 4, in hne 3 the citation should read. &dquo;(Mitnick, 1974, 1975a,1975b)&dquo; and m hne 10 the citation should read: &dquo;(see Mitnick, 1975b)&dquo;



Some Perspectives for L earning Organizations - CiteSeerX

Documents

Transcript of Some Perspectives for L earning Organizations - CiteSeerX