KEEHLEY, Patricia <br/><br/>
A response to Charles T. Goodsell. Administration as ritual :  comforting or confounding? 

 - New York :  Marcel Dekker,  1997 
<br/><br/> 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.