Public Administration
in the Public Interest: Thoughts About Public
Administration Post September 11, 2001
by Paula D. Gordon
September 12, 2002
This article is also posted on the American Society for Public Administration Web site at http://www.aspanet.org/
Such an approach to public administration would
also reflect a new commitment to grappling with the critical national
and global challenges that threaten humankind.
Such an approach to public administration is one
that I more fully described in my doctoral dissertation.
There I called it the "Public Administration in the
Public Interest" approach to public administration.
This approach is an amalgam of approaches to public administration
that should be familiar to students, as well as academicians and
practitioners. The
approach shares values and assumptions similar to those found in
the Wilson/Appleby/Waldo lineage of public administration.
It also shares the pragmatic problemsolving, change agentry
and value-based change orientation of development administration.
Over much of the past century, such scientistic
values and assumptions have achieved increasing dominance in public
administration as well as in the social and political sciences in
general. The
increasing dominance of the values of value-neutral scientism has
been at odds with the basic values present at the founding of the
American experiment. Indeed, in order for a free
and democratic society to flourish, all its citizens, including,
especially, those in roles of public responsibility, need to champion
the set of values that includes the valuing of life, health, freedom,
and caring and concern.
The attacks of September 11 have served to regalvanize and
reawaken this set of core values.
The Public Administration in the Public Interest
approach to public administration embraces these values and is both
proactive and practical in its orientation.
A valuing of common sense, ingenuity, experience, knowledge,
understanding, initiative, and a sense of responsibility and stewardship
are central. Indeed,
such an orientation was evident in the actions and accomplishments
of the nation's Founders.
The crises we have been living through have served
to reawaken such an orientation and have spurred changes in the
way we think and act. There is an increasing recognition
that science and technology need to be used in responsible ways
to meet human needs, manage societal problems, and address the challenges
and threats that face humankind. In expressing his views concerning
the potential misuse of science, Thoreau had warned that man must
not allow himself to become a "tool of his tools."
Science and technology need to be used to benefit humankind
and help ensure the viability and the very future of civilization.
It is incumbent on those in roles of public responsibility
to act out of a sense of altruism or what Maslow called "metamotivation". Altruistic or metamotivated individuals
are those who are as concerned for the welfare of others as they
are for their own welfare. The words of the Preamble reflect
such a sense of altruism.
Those preparing to assume roles of public responsibility
need to receive education and training that nurtures such values,
cultivates such a sense of responsibility, concern for the welfare
of others, and concern for the public good. Their education should be designed
to help them understand the nature of their obligations and the
importance of carrying out their obligations well and honorably.
Ongoing education and training are also needed for those
already in roles of responsibility to help ensure that such values
and principles are imparted and similarly nurtured and kept alive.
Had the attacks of September 11, 2001 not occurred,
I might be dwelling here on the many continuing unmet challenges
of the field of public administration. I might have cited
examples of games of public policy Russian Roulette that have been
played that could have had and could have cataclysmic consequences
for the nation, if not the world. I might have expressed concern
regarding the state of public administration theory and
practice and education and training. I might have bemoaned the fact that
so few exemplars remain who so well represented the Wilson/Appleby/Waldo
lineage of public administration remain, the likes of Roger Jones,
Don Stone, Arthur Fleming, John Gardner, and John Macy. I
might have noted the irony that as elements of the private sector
had become increasingly socially responsible, elements of the public
sector had become less socially responsible while focusing increasingly
on process and decreasingly on purpose.
I might have re-raised the fundamental question posed by
Paul Appleby: "What makes government different?" I might have made the point that too
many in roles of public responsibility seem to have no answer to
that question. As Appleby had written, what makes
government different is that government and those who serve in government
are obliged to serve the public good.
They are obliged to act in the public interest.
This obligation is what sets the public sector apart from
the private sector. While
those in the private sector are free to act as altruistically as
they like, while they are free to balance making a profit with making
a contribution to the public good; those in the public sector are
obliged to devote their efforts to nurturing and serving the public
good.
But the events of September 11 did occur and the
thrust of my comments here has changed accordingly.
A re-awakening of values and a sense of purpose has been
set in motion. A great deal of on-the-job learning
has also taken place and is continuing to take place.
Those in positions in public responsibility have been and
are being tested in ways that they have not been tested before.
They have been forced to see their roles in a new light.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 have shaken to the core freedom-loving people everywhere. They have jarred Americans and others throughout the world into a near instant recognition of the preciousness of life; the importance of the love of friends and family; and the significance of the tangible, as well as intangible bonds that unite neighbors, associates and co-workers, communities and countries, and, indeed, nearly the whole of humankind. Using Mary Parker Follett's terms, one might say that the events have acted as an "invisible leader" and that invisible leadership, along with extraordinary visible leadership, have served to "unleash" incredible stores of "creative energies". The attacks have awakened and reawakened a sense of meaning, purpose, direction, and mission that seems to have lain dormant for decades and more. The attacks have forced an instantaneous transformation of the nation's agenda and the agendas of the nations of the world. A challenge to those in roles of public responsibility in America is the extent to which the re-galvanized sense of core values and renewed sense of purpose and direction will be kept alive and drive our actions into the future. ~~~~~~~
E-mail: pgordon@erols.com
Return to Paula Gordon's Homeland Security Page
|