- First. They develop a science for each element of a man's work, which replaces the old rule-of-thumb method.
- Second. They scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself as best he could.
- Third. They heartily cooperate with the men so as to insure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed.
- Fourth. There is an almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen. The management take over all work for which they are better fitted than the workmen, while in the past almost all of the work and the greater part of the responsibility were thrown upon the men.
Henry Gantt was another early contributor to the scientific approach. Gantt worked for Taylor and remains famous for two reasons. First, he developed the so-called Gantt Chart, an innovation at the time, which was a chart or visual representation of scheduling and is still sometimes called a "Gantt Chart" or critical path method. He also emphasized the importance of management paying attention to workers, something that has often been lost in the practice and theory of bureaucracy.
If you are interested in more detail and background about these early days, this site has a brief overview of the history of project management, and if your fascination deepens you can find a brief overview of historical developments in management dating back intoantiquity.
Frank and Lillian Gilbreth investigated the movement of people during work to understand their motions and the surrounding environment with an eye to changing the conditions to improve efficiency. These many influences were important in manufacturing and other applications. As a result, the research of Taylor and others became influential in education during the 1920s with the goal of creating efficient schools through a practice called machine theory.
The way to increase efficiency was to increase the size of classes, reduce the number of administrators, hold down costs and salaries, and other efficiency measures. This movement dovetailed with a later movement, behaviorism, as a way to list exactly the behaviors of teachers and administrators to create effective schools. When you hear the phrase factory model of education, this is the explanation.
A criticism of the scientific approach that remains to this day is the insensitivity and hidden inefficiencies of the bureaucracy, and the disregard for human relations and human needs. At one time bureaucracy was heralded as the ideal formal organization by Max Weber. Weber describes a system of hierarchical division of labor based on explicit rules "impersonally applied, staffed by full-time, life-time, professionals, who do not in any sense own the 'means of administration', or their jobs, or the sources of their funds, and live off a salary, not from income derived directly from the performance of their job" (see Weber).
The job is the office, not the person. In fact Weber explains that bureau was a German adaptation of the French word which came to mean desk or office in German. In English the word "bureau" often has a more common meaning, a piece of furniture, but the German derivation relates more directly to a desk, something that denotes an "office" and not the person.
The size of the desk and its quality are important factors in the pecking order. A former university vice president owned a large desk, made of cherry, and quite expensive. He was removed by a new Provost--the euphemism for this is "wanting to return to teaching." He took his desk with him, only to discover that it nearly filled the entire space in the office provided for professors. The extent of the importance of this issue can be emphasized in Florida, where unionized professors have strict agreements that all professors will have offices of exactly the same size.
Behavior is dictated by the system, which has built in rewards and sanctions. The notion of tenure is associated with bureaucracy, the idea that a person has lifelong job security for doing the organization's business without question. This is criticized because "deadwood" cannot be moved to change or improve. On the other hand, the bureaucracy was created to demand conformity, so job security is a benefit for following the rules. While bureaucracy may be technically efficient, it disregards the personal needs of workers and is resistant to change. As a result a number of theorists and researchers have looked for ways to change or displace the bureaucracy, but always with the aim of improving productivity. This is especially problematic in today's economy that requires quick reactions and sudden changes in order to remain viable in the marketplace. In education the definition of productivity is difficult to pinpoint other than in terms of some test scores, which are inherently unfair across different organizations.
Human Relations
Elton Mayo conducted research at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric in Chicago. The so-called Hawthorne studies were a series of experiments to see the effects of different variables on output in an assembly plant. Workers were put into different conditions and examined. A variety of findings were derived, one being the "Hawthorne Effect."
A telephone company operated a plant called The Hawthorne where there were approximately 30,000 employees manufacturing telephones and related equipment. The research set out to discover ways to improve productivity. An early study was conducted with a small group of employees and the variable under study was lighting. Most workers were stationed independently and at work stations. For the experiment, some workers were brought together in a room where they could be more easily observed. As the room became brighter and brighter with stronger lights, production increased. In fact, it seemed that productivity increased each time the lighting was increased. To check their results, the experiment was reversed with lighting reduced incrementally, eventually reaching the original or standard lighting level and then lower. Productivity remained high. When the room was almost dark, productivity dropped off, probably because it was difficult to see well enough to do the work. A couple of explanations were offered. First, the fact of bringing workers together may have created some kind of social context that did not exist before, so a group dynamic was in effect. Second, the fact that they were being observed may have been the reason they were so productive. The famous Taylor experiment, where he watched one worker all day, may have had a similar effect. Although the explanations for the "Hawthorne effect" are still debated, it created a belief that social factors are important in a bureaucracy, and today we have an almost opposite philosophy expressed in the Total Quality Management literature. Workers are more productive under any conditions if the supervisor pays attention to them. Workers organize informally and develop attitudes and work norms that are considered appropriate for the group.
In a similar vein, F. J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson (1939) set up experimental work rooms and groups to study workers under various conditions, length of the day and work week, fatigue, monotony, light and other environmental factors, type of supervision, and other factors resulted in increased productivity. It became apparent to them that differences were unrelated to the conditions but explained by positive interpersonal relationships and intense attention of supervisors. The workers, unaccustomed to supervisor attention, developed a bond with the supervisor and were spurred on by social reasons.
The underlying belief of the human relations approach is that a social group meets the needs of workers. The group's norms motivate them to excellence, or at least to meet the norms of the group. This is similar to the commutarian view of farming. The code of behavior, albeit unwritten specifies mores, standards of behavior, and taboos. The need for job satisfaction, esteem in the group, and involvement are the motivational factors in this theory.
Behavioral Scientists
Not to be confused with behaviorism, the behavioral science approach is often attributed to Maslow, who conducted research on human behavior and defined a hierarchy of needs: biological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. Beyond shelter, food, rest, and safety, workers need to belong, respect and be respected, and to have something to achieve for self-fulfillment. The bureaucracy does not offer rewards at higher levels much beyond safety. Maslow and others took the position that, given the right circumstances, people will manage themselves and will work optimally if their social and psychological needs are met in the organization. In the recent phenomenon of "going postal," some have speculated that workers in the Postal Service have only their biological needs met and that the inability to achieve love, esteem, or self-actualization may be the reason for alienation, resentment, and motivation for revenge. Any bureaucracy can create an adverse environment. Many teachers and college professors may have limits on their ability to meet the higher needs delineated by Maslow, greatly determined by the principal or the dean.
Frederick Herzberg, either a human relations or a behavioral science advocate, depending upon whom you read, developed two theories of motivation: Hygiene Theory and Motivation. Hygiene refers to the culture of the organization, and without a proper environment there is no basis for stimulating motivation. The second part of the motivation theory involves what people actually do on the job. The motivators are achievement, recognition, interest, growth, responsibility, and advancement and interest in the job. These factors result from needs within employees.
A rather famous extension of this behavioral science view is the work of Douglas McGregor, who proposed two models in his book, "The Human Side of Enterprise,"Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X postulated:
- The typical worker dislikes work and will avoid it if possible.
- It is necessary to coerce or threaten people to get them to work.
- The typical worker wants to be told what to do because of a dislike for responsibility.
Theory X postulates:
- The need to work is natural.
- People will work without coercion if they are committed to the aims of the organization.
- High job satisfaction results from commitment to the organization.
- Give proper context, a worker seeks responsibility.
- Talent exists throughout the organization and can be tapped to solve problems.
management styles. In essence, productivity is achieved by means of peer and management recognition but not necessarily because of promotion and reward. As will be seen, this ties into the Deming theories and TQM. As applied to education, setting pay scales based on performance of individual teachers or bonuses and rewards, such as outstanding teacher, does not result in better performance overall. In fact, it may cause serious problems. As in Florida, where all offices of unionized professors are the same size, there are other negative impacts.
Rensis Likert
Likert conducted research on human behavior within organizations. He is best known for developing the "Likert survey" and for studying the effects of different types of leadership styles on organizations. He maintained that to achieve maximum profitability it is necessary to have effective work groups linked together in an overlapping pattern by other similarly effective groups. Likert believed that motivation results from meeting personal needs and not by rewards and threats of intimidation. Employees must be seen as people who have their own needs, desires and values and their self-worth must be maintained or enhanced. The most important ingredient is mutual respect. This view has common links to both the commutarian view and the moral or virtuous organization of Sergiovanni (1992). Sharing the same values and having mutual trust, an organization is effective.
Rensis Likert is known to most educators because his name has become associated with the survey instrument that uses a scaling system. By using the survey instrument in his research, Likert examined how management styles in an organization affect groups in an organization. He described four types of leadership style (see this website also):
- Exploitive - authoritative, decisions imposed, motivation characterized by threats, and little communication and no joint teamwork.
- Benevolent-authoritative, leadership is condescending, motivation is by rewards, managers feel responsibility but those at lower levels do not, and there is little communication and relatively little teamwork.
- Consultative - superiors have substantial (if not total) trust in subordinates, motivation is by rewards and a little involvement, many upper level personnel feel responsibility for achieving organization goals, and there is some communication and a moderate amount of teamwork.
- Participative- leaders have complete confidence in subordinates, motivation is by economic rewards based on goals established through participation, personnel at all levels feel real responsibility for the organizational goals, and there is much communication and much cooperative teamwork.
Total Quality Management is the culture of an organization committed to customer satisfaction through continuous improvement. The focus on certain essential principles to improve are based on the profit motive. Like other models of management taken from industry for application in education, there are some problems making the "fit" between a profit making organization and a service organization.
The concept of TQM is based on stages of quality in an organization, and there are different stages according to which theorist is read. In general the stages are related to product oriented, process oriented, systems oriented, humanistic, society oriented, cost oriented, and quality function deployment. As applied to education, most schools in the United States are at the lowest level, being concerned with test scores as a product.
The literature of TQM focuses largely on management and management technique, whereas the Japanese literature about TQC concentrates on process development. In the American literature for corporations and education there is a lack of any agreement or understanding about what quality is or really means. The Japanese have defined quality clearly.
In education there is considerable difficulty getting beyond test scores as the major quality indicator. In colleges it is often the number of publications or committees listed on a vita. In the final analysis it may be that the greatest problem of education is the inability to define quality and to identify the processes by which it is achieved. The current trends of reflective practice, constructivism, and the rejection of objectivism have led to unscientific approaches that cannot be quantified.
Perhaps
the most influential person in management today is the late W.
Edwards Deming, Working quietly in Japan after World War II,
he is credited by the Japanese as the one who raised their country from
the ashes of defeat to an international manufacturing giant. His
approach is simple and has been discussed if not embraced by educators.
The following statements by Deminggive
the essence of his beliefs:
| Further
illustrations of entwinement of psychology and use of the theory of variation
(statistical theory) are boundless. For example, the number of defective
items that an inspector finds depends on the size of the work load presented
to him (documented by Harold F. Dodge in the Bell Telephone Laboratories
around 1926). An inspector, careful not to penalize anybody
unjustly, may pass an item that is just outside the borderline (Out
of the Crisis, p. 266). The inspector in the illustration on page
265 of the same book, to save the jobs of 300 people, held the proportion
of defective items below 10 per cent. She was in fear for their jobs.
A teacher, not wishing to penalize anyone unjustly, will pass a pupil that
is barely below the requirement for a passing grade. Fear invites wrong figures. Bearers of bad news fare badly. To keep his job, anyone may present to his boss only good news. A committee appointed by the President of a company will report what the President wishes to hear. Would they dare report otherwise? An individual may inadvertently seek to cast a halo about himself. He may report to an interviewer in a study of readership that he reads the New York Times, when actually this morning he bought and read a tabloid. Statistical calculations and predictions based on warped figures may lead to confusion, frustration, and wrong decisions. Accounting-based measures of performance drive employees to achieve targets of sales, revenue, and costs, by manipulation of processes, and by flattery or delusive promises to cajole a customer into purchase of what he does not need (adapted from the book by H. Thomas Johnson, Relevance Regained, The Free Press, 1992). A
leader of transformation, and managers involved, need to learn the psychology
of individuals, the psychology of a group, the psychology of society, and
the psychology of change. |
As can be seen in each era, business management principles are applied to schools in theory or practice. Once it was machine theory, today it is quality circles, 360 degree evaluations, and soon it will be some form of Chaos theory.
What is Systems Theory and how does it fit into this?
Systems theory was proposed by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Instead of reducing a biological system, such as a plant or animal, to parts (organs or cells), systems theory accepts that each identifiable component is related to other parts. The entire system works together but each sub-system is identified by the unique activity that occurs within it. von Bertalanffy attempted to attack objectivism with his theory, opposed as he was to reductionism in science. As such, his theory is consonant with constructivist approaches, which are rare in science outside of psychology and Chaos theory. He also emphasized the importance of systems as open, meaning they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence. This is evolution, of course. In systems theory, at least in the beginning and prior to manufacturing applications, the intention was to see systems as integrated wholes instead of disassembled parts. In other sections of this course, reference is made to simplification and de-contextualization in education, which is a similar notion in systems theory, a form of reductionism. You will also notice the emphasis in this course on the concept of self-organization in cognitive theory, so there is theoretical compatibility between systems theory and cognition. Today many writers also make connections between systems theory and Chaos theory, evolution, management and many other fields.
Drawing upon the work of Senge (1990), a learning organization is a Gestalt:
- At
the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind--from seeing ourselves
as separate from the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems
as caused by someone or something 'out there' to seeing how our own actions
create the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place
where people are continually discovering how they create their reality.
And how they can change it" (p. 12-13).
Systems have four major characteristics:
Systems are goal oriented (either by evolution or design)
Systems have inputs from their environment.
Systems have outputs to achieve their goals.
There is feedback from the environment about the output.
The Gestalt law that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts has general application in understanding organizational behavior and learning. A learning organization is one in which people continually discover how they create their reality, meaning their successes and their failures, and how they can change it. To illustrate this point and to punctuate his book, Senge concludes his text with a chapter entitled the Indivisible Whole, in which he relates the notion of the Gaia-the theory, that the earth is one living organism. So also is a school.
General systems theory looks for the principles of organization regardless of the field (physics, biology, technology, education, sociology, and so forth). Systems concepts include: system-environment boundary, input, output, process, state, hierarchy, goal-directedness, and information.
As applied to a College, the IT program has a boundary within which almost all interactions occur between and among the professors. Most of the contact on a daily basis involves the professors and students. Beyond the boundary is the larger organization, which is also comprised of sub-systems with boundaries. Some have more interaction at the boundaries than others, such as among those programs in where support is provided for other student majors. There are sources of inputs, such as resources and directives, and outputs, where an output from IT may be an input for another program or an input or output for the entire system (graduated student). There is a hierarchy, which in this case is imposed by the culture of the organization.
Following the Gestalt principle, a system, once organized, is not simply a collection of parts but a functional entity that has properties that cannot exist independently as a collection of parts.
Some basic concepts are:
- A system is a structure of organized parts, all of which have slight to greater differences.
- No system exists in isolation.
- Pressures for change come from outside a system or component and from the top down.
- The functioning of a system effects multiple other systems and is effected by multiple other systems
- The interaction among systems creates a constant state of change.
- A system tends to be self-organized and to remain stable.
- Time is a significant dimension and different effects occur over time.
- A system exerts forces on other systems and receives the pressures of forces from other systems.
Any event can be considered to be caused by a sequence of other events, although the last event (causative) is often regarded as the determiner. However, a remote event in the history of the system may have laid the groundwork for the event. For example, while two groups in an organization may be in conflict over some issue, the real cause may relate to the history of the organization that was allowed to function in an unhealthy manner by the introduction of a new leader or particular policy that permitted or encouraged the conflict.
The systems approach can be a practical tool in the development of instructional systems, software, and evaluation plans. The model for doing this can be based on the Discrepancy Evaluation Model which causes the system to be examined in terms of elements or sub-systems.
The literature in education and corporate leadership abounds with terminology that often gets transformed in use by different people and, therefore, has different meanings. As applied to education, to many people the "learning organization" is a place where everyone is concerned with discovering conditions that support learning. But this is not much different than the traditional view of schooling. The learning organization or the learning community is about the organization itself. As applied to a school, it is concerned with how the organization learns to achieve its goals more effectively. It is about improving the organization. Drawing upon the work of Senge (1990), a learning organization is a Gestalt:
- At the heart of a learning
organization is a shift of mind--from seeing ourselves as separate from
the world to connected to the world, from seeing problems as caused by
someone or something 'out there' to seeing how our own actions create the
problems we experience. A learning organization is a place where
people are continually discovering how they create their reality.
And how they can change it" (p. 12-13).
- I am my position.
"I am a counselor," or "I am a teacher" are common expressions. To
Senge, when people focus only on their positions, they have little sense
of how the positions interact. The learning organization is composed
of people who see themselves as part of an organization where the interactions
of all create the total effect.
The enemy is out there. This is a form of scapegoating. Problems are blamed on others rather than looking within the organization to find ways to improve.
The illusion of taking charge. The reaction of organizations in trouble is to face up to perceived problems, not necessarily to find the problem within the organization that is really at fault.
The fixation of events. Problem in an organization come from day-to-day incremental processes rather than major events.
The parable of the boiled frog. "Put a frog in boiling water and he will jump out; put him in water that is slowly brought to a boil and he will stay." The message is clear, look for the real threats that are part of the system.
The delusion of learning from experience. We never (sometimes) do not learn from our experiences because the consequences are distant or complex.
The myth of the management team. Collecting a group of experienced experts to "fix" the system does not work because they are not part of the culture.
Systems theory emerged as a science of production during World War II when manufacturers of war materiel were interested in finding the most efficient and rapid methods of output. A system is investigated by analyzing each subordinate component, reducing systems to components, sometimes without regard for interactions within the larger system. A component is a part of a larger system that can be identified as a relatively independent part.
The individual's psychological processes are always bound to the culture in some way because the individual uses a particular "set" of cultural tools. The world view (Weltanschauung) held by different societies, cultural groups, and those who share religious or political attitudes are clearly tied to culture and society. In fact, the shared beliefs, values, and prejudices of a group are important in group identification. Members of a scientific group share mental representations, and they reject notions and theories that do not correspond to representations shared among the group. In this respect, a community of scholars, a religious order, and the Ku Klux Klan demonstrate similar traits.
The Weltanschauung of different epochs reveals "shared cognition" or common viewpoints. Prior to Newton, with the Earth at the center of the universe, most people believed a quite different universe existed than the one most people imagine today. Until the emergence of modern political states, few people had allegiance to a country or nation-state but identified with tribes or clans. Modern concepts of patriotism and serving one's country were unknown. For most of history people have believed in magic and evil spirits and explained many daily events as the work of angels, fairies, demons and other forces. Postmodern views of civilization are important in shaping current politics and behavior of nations, such as the view that Earth's resources should be exploited or that the world will soon come to an end--beliefs that can and will lead to certain actions with a range of possible outcomes. (Change your Weltanschauung and change the world).
The New Systems Theory
Since James Gleick's best-selling book in 1987, Chaos: Making A New Science, chaos theory has become an increasingly popular metaphor in management literature, regarded as the "new science" of administration (Overman, 1996; Evans, 1996; and Morcol, 1996). Sergiovanni (1995) introduced chaos theory briefly in his textbook, The Principalship, suggesting that principals can rely upon traditional management theory in simple, linear conditions such as bus schedules, purchasing books, conference planning, and other events and activities. For truly important complex tasks, such as student and teacher performance, Sergiovanni says traditional management practice will not work and refers to chaotic systems.
While chaos theory has been slow to enter the professional education literature, hundreds of books and articles have embraced it as a metaphor in the general management literature. Numerous consultants and centers now employ chaos theory as the new "paradigm." The Santa Fe Institute's Praxis Group is an example, an organization dedicated to the applications of complexity theory to business management.
Chaos theory is reminiscent of Gestalt Theory; a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is also similar to systems theory, for chaos theory is only concerned with systems. The application of chaos theory reveals organizations as complex and unpredictable because of the relations among constituents of a system. For the near term, chaos theory appears to be an important development in management theory competing with Total Quality Management (TQM), motivation, and other popular human relations approaches. However, TQM and other techniques have concrete steps to inform the administrator, but articles about chaos theory often leave the manager with little guidance and a sense of bewilderment about complexity.
What is Chaos Theory?
Chaos theory is a field of physics and mathematics dealing with the structures of turbulence and the self-similar forms of fractal geometry. Chaos deals with unpredictable complex systems. Chaos theory comes, in part, from the work of Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist, who simulated weather patterns on a computer. Working with a computer having limited memory, after viewing a particular pattern, he wanted to recover the data and started the program again, except he put in the values rounded off to 3 places instead of the original 6. He was surprised to find a completely different result. Trying this repeatedly, he found that essentially identical variables or slightly different ones at the initial condition resulted in profoundly different patterns. From this accidental discovery has grown the field of chaos theory that now has applications in many scientific fields of science and management theory.
The theory is concerned with natural processes and expressed in terms of mathematical formulas, calculations that were virtually impossible without computers. Except in specific cases, such as world monetary flows and heart arrhythmia that can be easily represented numerically, it is difficult to prove that social systems have the same traits. Nonetheless, as a metaphor or an analogy, chaos theory can be used as a way to conceptualize management theory. The characteristics of a chaotic system are as follows:
Sensitivity to Initial Conditions. As in the case of Lorenz's work, a complex system reacts to different variables at the outset in unpredictable ways. Even starting with the same, exact or slightly different variables in a model will not result in the same outcomes, if the system is complex.
Time Irreversibility. In a complex system you never have the same context twice. Thus, a school with essentially identical personnel and other similar characteristics will never perform exactly the same way as another (or itself). An analogy often used to explain this is, "You never step in the same river twice," meaning the system is never exactly the same. The water you cross is different than a moment ago or a few moments later. In fact, with time the river may meander, dry up, or become a flood. As applied to management, a strategy or decision will never be made twice with the same context.
Strange Attractors. Attractors in chaos theory are like the influence of gravity, sets of values in the "phase space" to which a system migrates over time, also called islands of stability (possible states of a dynamical system). In a formula an attractor can be a single fixed point, a collection of points, a complex orbit, or an infinite number of points. While it is less clear how these are represented in a social organization, there is the belief that any organization has "attractors" that cause the behavior of the organization to alter over time, depending upon which social, economical, or other forces drive the system at a given point and how they interact.
Fractal Forms. A fractal is any curve or surface that is independent of scale. Any segment, if magnified in scale, appears identical to the whole curve. In the management analogy, it is assumed that different levels of organization resemble others, like a fractal in the managerial hierarchy. A form of social structures can be examined in relation to characteristics of the whole system at the macro and micro levels.
Bifurcation. Bifurcation is the sudden appearance of qualitatively different solutions to the equations for a nonlinear system as a parameter is varied. In an organization, two different patterns (groups) can emerge to address an issue differently, as complexity increases. This can be a source of creativity.
The Organization as Machine
Modern management science stems from work early in the century dealing with manual labor (loading pig iron) to optimize human behavior to maximize productivity. Most work today in the "knowledge age" is about thinking and decision-making rather than labor. How do you manage an organization made up of thinkers? This is the appeal of Chaos theory, or the view that organizations are complex adaptive systems that have behaviors similar to those found in natural processes--different stages of stability and chaos.
A mechanistic system is orderly, unchanging and the system has cycles of behavior that are exactly the same, predictable and planned. This is similar to the factory, assembly line model. Static strategic planning models are mechanistic. Curriculum planning, inservice training, course scheduling, financial planning, and administrative control are factors that attempt to force the system toward a particular state of order. It is difficult to think strategically about altering current practices and making the subsequent choices to transform these practices. The characteristics of the mechanistic organization are (private communication from Michelle Acker, in publication):
- Control: hierarchical.
- Compliance: Closed, overly managed.
- Fragmentation: Workers are discouraged from collaborating.
- Prediction: Members gather numerical data for outside agencies.
- Non-Systemic: Change is non-systemic and limits transfer and learning.
- Holding On: Old patterns and behaviors are guarded
As indicated above, just how useful will be the Chaos metaphor remains to be determined.
Evans, Karen G. (1996). Chaos as Opportunity: Grounding a Positive Vision of Management and Society in the New Physics. Public Administration Review 56 (September/October): 491-494.
Gleick, James. Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
Jaworski, Joseph. Snychronicity: The Inner Path to Leadership. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1996.
Moran, Gabriel. A Grammar of Responsibility. New York: Crossroads Publishing Company, 1996.
Morcol, Goktug (1996). Fuzz and Chaos: Implications for Public Administration Theory and Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6 (April): 315-325.
Nadler, David, A. and Gernstein, Marc S. Designing High-Performance Work Systems: Organizing People, Work, Technology, and Information. In Organization Architecture by David Nalder, Marc Gerstein, and Robert Shaw, pp. 110-133. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hiro Takeuchi. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Overman, E. Sam (1996). The New Sciences of Administration: Chaos and Quantum Theory. Public Administration Review 56 (September/October): 487-491.
Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W.J. (1943). Management and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wheatley, M. J. Leadership and the New Science. San Fransico: Berrett-Koehler, 1992.
Wheatley, Margaret J. and Myron Kellner-Rogers. A Simpler Way. San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1996.
Wirth, A. G. Education and Work: The Choices We Face. Phi Delta Kappan, vol 74, no 5, pp. 361-366.