<style type="text/css"> .wpb_animate_when_almost_visible { opacity: 1; }</style> Enap catalog › Details for: A response to Charles T. Goodsell. Administration as ritual :
Normal view MARC view ISBD view

A response to Charles T. Goodsell. Administration as ritual : comforting or confounding?

By: KEEHLEY, Patricia.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticlePublisher: New York : Marcel Dekker, 1997International Journal of Public Administration - IJPA 20, 4-5, p. 963-966Abstract: Goodsell's definition of rituals and administration logically and experientially rings true. Formalizing the relationship between them was both unique and obvious, since we all have an intuitive sense that some of our administrative habits are ritualistic; we regularly complete paperwork, stop for coffee, make phone calls, etc. However, Goodsell has afforded us the opportunity to refer to some of these habits, such as red tape (immigration procedures) or administrivia (staff meetings) as rituals which help promote the social continuity. Similarly, we can rationalize that our comfortable administrative habits need not be changed because they unify. Abstract: Yes, the concept of rituals can be applied to many aspects of administration, but to what end? Ritualists suggest some rituals “work” while others do not, so we know little about when or how rituals are effective. To simply state that the concepts and philosophies of rituals offer a means to better understand administration leaves one cold. Goodsell provides little help in discerning how and why rituals are important to understanding administration. Since he links administration to rituals without an explicit purpose for doing so, he contributes to the perception that bureaucracies consist of meaningless tasks and tangles that prevent efficient government operations.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
No physical items for this record

Goodsell's definition of rituals and administration logically and experientially rings true. Formalizing the relationship between them was both unique and obvious, since we all have an intuitive sense that some of our administrative habits are ritualistic; we regularly complete paperwork, stop for coffee, make phone calls, etc. However, Goodsell has afforded us the opportunity to refer to some of these habits, such as red tape (immigration procedures) or administrivia (staff meetings) as rituals which help promote the social continuity. Similarly, we can rationalize that our comfortable administrative habits need not be changed because they unify.

Yes, the concept of rituals can be applied to many aspects of administration, but to what end? Ritualists suggest some rituals “work” while others do not, so we know little about when or how rituals are effective. To simply state that the concepts and philosophies of rituals offer a means to better understand administration leaves one cold. Goodsell provides little help in discerning how and why rituals are important to understanding administration. Since he links administration to rituals without an explicit purpose for doing so, he contributes to the perception that bureaucracies consist of meaningless tasks and tangles that prevent efficient government operations.

Volume 20

Numbers 4-5

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Click on an image to view it in the image viewer

Escola Nacional de Administração Pública

Escola Nacional de Administração Pública

Endereço:

  • Biblioteca Graciliano Ramos
  • Funcionamento: segunda a sexta-feira, das 9h às 19h
  • +55 61 2020-3139 / biblioteca@enap.gov.br
  • SPO Área Especial 2-A
  • CEP 70610-900 - Brasília/DF
<
Acesso à Informação TRANSPARÊNCIA

Powered by Koha