See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304108869

Bureaucratic Theory: Myths, Theories, Models, Critiques

Chapter · January 2013

CITATIONS READS
0 2,728

1 author:

Eugenie Samier
University of Strathclyde
90 PUBLICATIONS   263 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue for Research in Educational Adm & Leadership on "Mentoring and Role Modelling in Educational Administration and Leadership" View project

postcolonial administration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eugenie Samier on 19 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER 78
Bureaucratic Theory
Myths, Theories, Models, Critiques
E. A. SAMIER
Eugenie A. Samier
The British University in Dubai
Bureaucracies are not new, and, in the modern world,
are ubiquitous. Empirically, they are old, found in
ancient societies such as China and Egypt that had
need of a large and coordinated workforce (Wittfogel,
1957), with elements carried up through the last few
centuries in various empires in the west and through
the Caliphate and Ottoman empires in the Arab and
Muslim worlds, through the Vatican to modern
bureaucracies. A centralized bureaucracy began to
form in eleventh century C.E. France, from which Prus-
sia later developed its well known bureaucracy upon
which Japan based its. An exam based meritocracy was
first established on a large scale in the Chinese manda-
rin tradition, adopted by the British India Company,
and then influencing U.K. meritocracy, and spreading
then through Canada, the United States, Australia, and
so on. Bureaucracies, therefore, are also a world histori-
cal phenomenon with complex causal relations spread
across empires, colonial systems, and nations. Its devel-
opment in Europe was originally seen in positive
terms, associated with liberal democracy, elevating the
social status and power of the bourgeoisie to cure the
problem of corruption through patronage by introduc-
ing a merit system of qualification and to release the
crown from strong influence by the nobility. The for-
mation of the modern Western bureaucracy therefore
accompanied and provided a causal condition for
democracy, and demands for a well-educated cadre
heavily influenced educational systems that conferred
the knowledge and privileges of an educated profes-
sional class. The history of bureaucracy is very different
from how it is usually characterized in the educational
administration field.
The Handbook of Educational Theories, pp. 901–907
Copyright © 2012 Information Age Publishing, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
901
THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE
AND SCOPE OF BUREAUCRACY THEORY
Bureaucratic theory in educational administration
comes predominantly from public administration and
private sector style management studies, themselves
derivative disciplines based on a number of core disci-
plines, such as political science, sociology, economics,
psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and arts cri-
tiques (e.g., literary critiques of bureaucrats) (see Kettl
& Milward, 1996). It also derives from a number of
other area studies like state/government theory, organi-
zation studies (itself broadly composed of behavior,
micro politics, culture, aesthetics), motivation theory,
professionalism and professional identity, value theory,
and institutional theory making it an inter- and multi-
disciplinary field. Generally, the theories and models
are drawn from these sources and applied to educa-
tional systems and organization. The only original con-
tribution to date from education that has been made to
bureaucratic theory is Weick’s (1976) concept of “loose-
coupling.”
The term “bureaucracy” means many different
things. Its conception varies considerably depending
upon whether one is referring to actual organizations
that are bureaucratic in character, an analytic theory of
bureaucracy for interpretive and critical use as Weber
developed, an attitude that is captured in the notion of
mentality such as “bureaucrat” (Aberbach, Putnam, &
Rockman, 1981), variously regarded as “technocrat,”
“fonctionnaire” (functionary in the French) (Howton,
1969), or “apparatchik” (in the Russian), or a set of mal-
practices as in “bureau pathology” taking a multitude
of forms. And there are probably many others. On an
902 E. A. SAMIER
empirical level, it may be a way of administering that
connotes ratio-pragmatic practices, as in the general
Anglo-American form, or a set of legal-administrative
practices in the legalistic-bureaucratic traditions of Ger-
many and France, a command system of authority in
the former Soviet world, the scribal bureaucracy of the
Ottoman Empire, or the scholar-administrators of the
traditional mandarinate in China. There are, therefore,
three types of theory and associated models: an empiri-
cal-historical varying by society and culture, analytic
(ideal type) for comparative world historical-sociology,
and normative (good practices), each with a different
purpose.
Generally, bureaucracy studies are considered a
social science in the English-speaking world, associated
most frequently with organizational structure, admin-
istrative functions, management techniques and eco-
nomic modeling informed primarily by rationalism
derived from modern economics, analytic philosophy,
systems analysis, and behavioral and cognitive science.
Bureaucratic studies from this perspective break down
taxonomically by subset into the structural and func-
tional domains of bureaucratic style organizations that
form the conventional basis of graduate programs and
research: organizational behavior, public policy process
(formulation, analysis, implementation, evaluation),
planning (strategic), personnel or human resources
management, finance and budgeting, accountability
and responsibilities, information systems, intergovern-
mental relations, municipal and regional, administra-
tive law, and comparative international administration.
Many educational administration texts follow this func-
tionalist and structural approach to varying degrees of
positivism, for example Bezeau (1989), Giles and Proud-
foot (1994), Guthrie and Reed (1991), Hoy and Miskel
(1987), Kimbrough (1988), and Sergiovanni (2009).
Some of the general critiques of this approach indi-
cating the limitations of a predominantly descriptive,
positivist, and social science view are the following: (1)
values of hierarchy, control, and power are implicit, if
not explicit; (2) a hidden agenda of conformity perme-
ates the literature and training programs, reducing
effective critique; and (3) historical and cross-cultural
comparison is scant since value analysis and historical
and anthropological theories and research methods are
required for this kind of research (see, e.g., English,
1994; Samier, 2005; Smyth, 1989).
Since the 1980s, consequently, a contrary interpre-
tive and critical tradition has emerged, including a
number of more fundamental critiques of the nature
and purpose of public sector bureaucracies that focus
on problematic experiential, social, and political
aspects. This includes the abuse of authority and
administrative evil, the development of a professional
identity, cultural and historical studies including prob-
lems of colonization, explorations of iideologies and
doctrines of administration, problems of modernity,
technical rationality and the fate of liberalism, theories
of leadership and governance, and the incompatibility
of democracy and bureaucracy. Drawing on a broader
range of disciplines, including philosophy, cultural
studies, humanistic psychology, and critical historiog-
raphy scholars have introduced a wide variety of cri-
tiques: critical theory, postmodernism, hermeneutics,
phenomenology, the feminist critique, decolonization,
ethics, and aesthetic analysis (Samier, 2005).
THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
BUREAUCRATIC THEORY
To some, public administration, and educational
administration are regarded as almost synonymous
with bureaucracy, although other forms of administra-
tive traditions have existed and still do in countries
where traditionalism is a dominant institutional feature
or where strong charismatic authority has established
itself (see Weber, 1968). However, “bureaucracy” repre-
sents only one form of administration, that emphasiz-
ing modernist principles of rationality. However, the
critique of theory in bureaucracy reflects much of the
modern anxiety about public administration lacking a
sufficient theoretical foundation, equivalent to that in
core disciplines. This issue has appeared a number of
times, first raised by Waldo (1968), followed by Ostrom
(1973), who regarded it as too closely tied to public
choice theory and preoccupied with efficiency; LaPorte
(1971) contending that it existed in a state of antique
maladapted analytical models and normative aridity;
Golembiewski (1977), who claimed that the field was in
drift, in intellectual crisis, and in need of a new per-
spective; and Caiden (1971), who critiqued its “theory-
less” state.
In spite of these contentions, the notion of “bureau-
cracy” in empirical or analytic form is shaped by a long
history of political philosophy including Aristotle,
Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, and Rousseau, all of
whom contributed heavily to our ideas of government.
Based partially on this philosophical foundation, social
theory of Comte, Marx, Weber, Simmel, Michels, and
Habermas have contributed to an understanding of
bureaucratic organization. One neglected area of the-
ory has been that of women philosophers who exam-
ined the rationale for state structures and their values
(particularly moral) implications: Madame de Staël,
Rosa Luxemburg, Hannah Arendt, Simone Weil (see
Grey, 1996), Susanne Langer, and Martha Nussbaum
(see Hodgkinson, 1996).
The earliest modern tradition affecting an under-
standing of bureaucracy is scientific management, in
part shaped by Wilson’s (1887) introduction of the poli-
tics-administration dichotomy. The most important

influences here are Taylor’s (1911) highly mechanized
model emphasizing time and motion studies, greatly
affecting educational management (Callahan, 1962),
and Simon (1947) on rational decision making. Subse-
quent writers have emphasized the effect of rational
authority on organizational structure (Meyer, 1972).
This approach also misrepresented Weber’s (1968) ana-
lytic bureaucracy type, treating it as either an empirical
or normative model. Hodgkinson (1978) and Green-
field (1986) were among the first in educational admin-
istration to fundamentally question the scientific
paradigm, followed shortly thereafter by such authors
as Smyth (1989), and a host of others throughout the
late 1980s and 1990s and into the present (see below).
The political critique includes a number of issues,
from the relationship between political regime and
bureaucracy to micropolitics of the bureaucratic organi-
zation. One area of that has long been developed is the
uneasy relationship between democracy and bureau-
cracy, found in Etzioni-Halevy (1983) examining the
dilemmas each poses for the other, and Richardson
(2003), who questions the relative power of bureaucra-
cies that have captured the policy process, an argument
pursued by Chapman (1990) in education. Other cri-
tiques of bureaucratic elite politics include the power of
senior bureaucrats in relation to the political regime,
explored by Strauss (1961), Peters (1978), and particu-
larly Wildavsky’s (1979) Speaking Truth to Power. In edu-
cational administration, the micropolitical has been
explored as a more realistic treatment of educational
bureaucracies (e.g., Ball, 1987). Postmodern critiques,
focusing on power, particularly the insights of Foucault
(1980), have been adopted widely in educational
administration supplanting a “modernist” approach
exemplified by Nyberg (1981).
Economics has played a stronger role in the last
thirty years internationally, especially as a founding
discipline for the New Public Management (NPM) neo-
liberal administrative ideology, through rational choice
theory, economic institutionalism theory, corporate cul-
ture doctrine, scientific management, and the importa-
tion of business management in the public sector
essentially opening the public sector to market princi-
ples and forces (see Gewirtz, Ball, & Bowe, 1995; Sam-
ier, 2001). Its emphasis is on the elimination of waste
and the measure of work outputs as a precondition for
control (Savoie, 1994), led intellectually by conservative
economists William Niskanen, Friedrich Hayek, and
Milton Friedman.
Interestingly, despite a large international literature
on the NPM, very little of it has been used in educa-
tional administration. This new managerialism,
though, has spawned a number of subliteratures that
have directly affected educational administration: its
promise to “debureaucratize” the public sector (e.g.,
Barzelay, 1992; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992); a popularity
Bureaucratic Theory 903
in leadership training (e.g., Maccoby, 1981; Tichy &
Devanna, 1986); and a functionalist use of organiza-
tional culture (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Schein,
1985). Many educational administration texts reflected
these new views: debureaucratization in Lawton,
Freedman, and Robertson (1995), leadership in educa-
tion in Cunningham (2003), Hodgkinson (1978), and
Maxcy (1991), and culture of educational organizations
in Walker and Dimmock (2002). The most popular texts
in the new managerialism have been critiqued by a
number of writers who have regarded them as superfi-
cial and lacking in scholarly rigour and uncritically
accepted too often in educational administration, such
as Covey (1989), Peters and Waterman (1982), and
Senge (1990) (see English, 2008; Mickelthwait &
Wooldridge, 1996). The economic has also been used to
examine the internal relationships and bureaucratic
conduct, as composed of competition and exchange
relationships (Breton & Wintrobe, 1982; Lubiensky,
2003).
Sociology is a major informing discipline of bureau-
cratic studies, initially developed by Weber, in the soci-
ological introduction to Economy and Society (1968),
where the process of bureaucratization was empha-
sized over reified notions of social structures indepen-
dent of human value orientations and social action,
and bureaucratization was taken to have negative char-
acteristics leading modernized societies into “disen-
chantment” and the “iron cage”. This approach has
been used by Torstendahl (1991) in his studies of
bureaucratized organizations, and explored into its log-
ical end by Jacoby (1973). Bureaucratic organizations
sociologically are those in which legal-rational values
are dominant, informing the style of authority, prac-
tices and structures (Crozier, 1964; Meyer, 1972), an
effect Mueller (1984) has traced through its effect on
education.
Cultural analysis from organization studies (see
Smircich, 1983) has had a strong impact on theories of
bureaucracy, and more recently the related field of aes-
thetic analysis (e.g., English, 2008; Samier & Bates, 2006;
Strati, 1999), that examine bureaucratic features as cre-
ative social constructions. Related to culture and aes-
thetics is the study of bureaucratic mentality and
personality, a field well-established in bureaucracy
studies for decades, particularly of the senior bureau-
crats, or “mandarins” in the British Commonwealth tra-
dition (e.g., Campbell & Szablowski, 1979; Hennessy,
1989), and carried through biographical and historical
studies (e.g., English, 2008; Fitzgerald & Gunter, 2009;
Ribbins, 2006).
Psychological studies of personality and character
began with the human relations or organizational
humanism school, like Mayo (1933), Barnard (1938),
Argyris (1957), Selznick (1957), and McGregor (1960);
however, the emphasis was still tied to managerial con-
904 E. A. SAMIER
trol and organizational imperatives. At the same time,
psychoanalytic studies was another mode of investigat-
ing the effects of bureaucratic organization and the
influence of neurotic individuals, with authors like
Horney (1950), carried into contemporary literature
with Diamond (1990), Zaleznik (1990), and Kets de
Vries (2006).
RESEARCH TRADITIONS
Generally, research on bureaucracy and bureaucratic
characteristics has been carried out through positivistic
research methods emphasizing quantification and
description: experimental methods, statistical analyses,
and descriptive case studies (e.g., Hoy & Miskel, 1987).
These are aimed at a functionalist purpose in improv-
ing managerialism, creating a corporate culture, put-
ting into place more effective performance appraisal
and accountability systems, and establishing more effi-
cient practices. For the educational sector this has
included the application of quality management, sys-
tems analysis, and social science techniques that are
grounded in positivism, renewed by such collections as
Mitchell’s (2006) that attempts to reconcile “science”
with moral values and political ends.
Alternative approaches have been developing since
Weber’s initial interpretive comparative historical-soci-
ological studies (although his writings have mostly
been misinterpreted in English), emphasizing critical
and interpretive approaches (see Ball, 1994; English,
2005), such as historiography, ethnography, hermeneu-
tics (Balfour & Mesaros, 1994; Hummel, 1991), critical
theory (Denhardt, 1984; Forester, 1981) used also in
feminist and minority studies, phenomenology
(Brown, 1978; Forester, 1990; Harmon, 1990), and dis-
course and narrative analysis (Farmer, 1995). The aim of
these perspectives is to address such problems as hege-
monic systems, overly rational decision making, capi-
talism and the commercialization of the public sector,
exploring the cultural life of bureaucratized organiza-
tions, examining the role of language and culture in
supporting the hierarchy of power, systems of mean-
ing, and the critique of bureaucratic mentality and ide-
ologies (see Evers & Lakomski, 1991). The study of
bureaucracy in education, as in other public sector
studies, is also well represented by case study analysis,
such as Hanson (2003) and Pusey (1976).
MAJOR CRITIQUES
The critique of bureaucracy began with one of its most
virulent critics, Max Weber (1930), who saw that the
emphasis on legal-rational values and thinking would
create people and organizations that would lose con-
nection with other values, such as affect, tradition, and
higher order values, leading to disenchantment, and an
iron cage of modernity (bureaucratization). Similarly
problems were identified in Michels’ (1962) notion of
the iron law of oligarchy where the bureaucratic elite
will pursue its own interests at the expense of those
dependent upon them, see in Mieczkowski’s (1995) The
Rot at the Top.
Marxist and neo-Marxist critiques are common in
the antibureaucracy movement connecting the har-
nessing of education to capitalism. One of the most
famous is Bowles and Gintis’s (1976) Schooling in Capi-
talist America, followed by a number of educational
administration authors adopting a neo-Marxist and
critical theory perspective such as those in Smyth’s
(1989) Critical Perspectives on Educational Leadership, Katz
(1971) critiquing the role of bureaucracy in maintaining
class structure, and many others like Apple (1982) and
Giroux and McLaren (1989) who critique the role
bureaucracy plays in maintaining capitalism. More
recent critiques derived in part from Marxist theory are
those drawing on Bourdieu and Habermas, such as
those from feminism, many of which applied neo-
Marxist analysis to the rights of women and minorities
for social justice (e.g., Blackmore & Kenway, 1993; Fer-
guson, 1984; McElroy, 1986).
The critical literature on the NPM is now extensive,
reviewing both its evolution and failures, and particu-
larly the role of “bureaucrat bashing” and “mandarin”
resistance that characterize its development (e.g.,
Aucoin, 1995; Campbell & Wilson, 1995; Savoie, 1994).
The most recent critique of bureaucratic elements in
education is that aimed at the new public management
for its role in transforming education into private enter-
prise, and its subjection to the military-industrial com-
plex in more systematic way than ever before (Giroux,
2007). A related economic phenomenon is globaliza-
tion, which has subjected many parts of the public sec-
tor, including education, to global market forces (e.g.,
Bottery, 2004; Shields & Evans, 1998). There are many
in the educational administration field who have cri-
tiqued this movement, aimed mostly at identifying the
damaging effects, through its commodification of edu-
cational systems (e.g., Ball, 2006; Bates, 1985; Priest & St
John, 2006; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997; Smyth, 1993).
STUDIES IN THE BUREAUCRACY OF
EDUCATION
There have been many studies of bureaucratic elites,
two of the most notable of which are Aberbach, Put-
nam, and Rockman (1981), Fleischer (1986), and Page
and Wright (1999). Similar studies in education are
Ringer’s (1990) and Nitta’s (2008) study of the educa-
tional bureaucratic elite, and Hartmann (2007) who

examines the role education, particularly elite schools
play in shaping a national bureaucratic elite.
Other studies examine the role of bureaucratic poli-
tics and the relationship with government, such as
Rogers’ (1968) early critical study of bureaucratic poli-
tics and its detrimental effect on New York City schools
and Corwin’s (1983) examination of two federal pro-
grams in U.S. education, adopting a biographical meta-
phor to explore the relationships between the
educational system and federal government, at a time
when the new public management was coming into
force, and entrepreneurialism was introduced drawing
from private sector management practices. A number
of departures from the bureaucratic have been
attempted in restructuring and reforms, such as the
self-managed school (Smyth, 1993) and Larson and
Ovando’s (2000) study of equity and multiculturalism
in the bureaucratic environment of education, where
bureaucratic features themselves inhibit and obstruct
the pursuit of social justice.
REFERENCES
Aberbach, J., Putnam, R. & Rockman, B. (1981). Bureaucrats
and politicians in western democracies. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Apple, M. (Ed.). (1982). Cultural and economic reproduction in
education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Aucoin, P. (1995). The new public management. Montreal, Can-
ada: The Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Balfour, D., & Mesaros, W. (1994). Connecting the local narra-
tives: Public administration as a hermeneutic science. Pub-
lic Administration Review, 54(6), 559-564.
Ball, S. (1987). The micro-politics of the school. London:
Methuen.
Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post structural
approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Ball, S. (2006). Education policy and social class. Abingdon,
Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge,
Ma: Harvard University Press.
Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Bates, R. (1985). Liberalism, Marxism and the struggle for the
state. Waurn Ponds, Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin
University Press.
Bezeau, L. (1989). Educational administration for Canadian teach-
ers. Toronto, Canada: Copp Clark Pitman.
Blackmore, J., & Kenway, J. (Eds.). (1993). Gender matters in
educational administration and policy. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Bottery, M. (2004). The challenges of educational leadership. Lon-
don: Paul Chapman.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Breton, A., & Wintrobe, R. (1982). The logic of bureaucratic con-
duct. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bureaucratic Theory 905
Brown, R. (1978). Bureaucracy as praxis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 23(3), 365-382.
Caiden, G. (1971). The dynamics of public administration. Hins-
dale, IL: Dryden Press.
Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, C., & Szablowski, G. (1979). The Superbureaucrats.
Toronto, Canada: Macmillan.
Campbell, C., & Wilson, G. (1995). The end of Whitehall. Oxford,
England: Blackwell.
Chapman, J. (1990). Democracy and bureaucracy. London:
Falmer Press.
Corwin, R. (1983). The entrepreneurial bureaucracy. Greenwich,
CN: JAI Press.
Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. London: Tavis-
tock.
Cunningham, W., & Cordeiro, P. (2003). Educational leadership.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Denhardt, R. (1984). Theories of public organization. Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Diamond, M. (1990). Psychoanalytic phenomenology and
organizational analysis. Public Administration Quarterly,
14(1), 32-42.
English, F. (1994). Theory in educational administration. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
English, F. (Ed.) (2005). The Sage handbook of educational leader-
ship. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
English, F. (2008). The art of educational leadership. Los Angeles,
CA: SAGE.
Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1983). Bureaucracy and democracy (2nd ed.)
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Evers, C., & Lakomski, G. (1991). Knowing educational adminis-
tration. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Farmer, D. (1995) The language of public administration. Tuscalo-
osa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Phila-
delphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Fitzgerald, T., & Gunter, H. (Eds.). (2009). Educational adminis-
tration and history. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York, NY: Pan-
theon.
Fleischer, C. (1986). Bureaucrat and intellectual in the Ottoman
Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Forester, J. (1981). Questioning and organizing attention.
Administration and Society, 13, 161-207.
Forester, J. (1990). No planning or administration without
phenomenology? Public Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 56-
65.
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. & Bowe, R. (1995) Markets, choice, and
equity in education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Giles, T. & Proudfoot, A. (1994) Educational administration in
Canada (5th ed.). Calgary, AB, Canada: Detselig.
Giroux, H. (2007). The university in chains. London: Paradigm.
Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1989). Critical pedagogy, the
state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
 906 E. A. SAMIER
Golembiewski, R. (1977). Public administration as a developing
discipline. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Greenfield, T. (1986). The decline and fall of science in educa-
tional administration. Interchange, 17(2), 57-80.
Grey, C. (1996). Towards a critique of managerialism: The con-
tribution of Simone Weil. Journal of Management Studies,
33(5), 591-612.
Guthrie, J., & Reed, R. (1991). Educational administration and
policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hanson, E. (2003). Educational administration and organizational
behavior (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hartmann, M. (2007). The sociology of elites. Abingdon, Oxford-
shire, England: Routledge.
Harmon, M. (1990). Applied phenomenology and organiza-
tion. Public Administration Quarterly, 14(1), 10-17.
Hennessy, P. (1989). Whitehall. London: Fontana.
Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Hodgkinson, C. (1996) Administration philosophy. Oxford, Eng-
land: Pergamon.
Horney, K. (1950) Neurosis and human growth. New York, NY:
W. W. Norton.
Howton, F. (1969). Functionaries. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle
Books.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (Eds.). (2004). Educational administration,
Au: Hoy & Miskel policy, and reform. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
2004 not in text.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (1987). Educational administration (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Random House.
Hummel, R. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as
valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 31-41.
Jacoby, H. (1973). The bureaucratization of the world. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Katz, M. (1971). Class, bureaucracy and schools. Santa Barbara,
CA: Praeger.
Kettl, D., & Milward, H. (1996). The state of public management.
Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Kets de Vries, M. (2006). The leadership mystique (2nd ed.). Lon-
don: Prentice-Hall.
Kimbrough, R. (1988). Educational administration (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
LaPorte, T. (1971). The recovery of relevance in the study of
Au: Page public organization (pp. 17-47). In F. Marini (Ed.), Toward a
number/s? new public administration. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
Larson, C. & Ovando, C. (2000). The color of bureaucracy. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lawton, S., Freedman, J., & Robertson, H.-J. (1995). Busting
Bureaucracy to reclaim our schools. Montreal, QC, Canada:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Lubiensky, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets. Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395-443.
Maccoby, M. (1981). The leader. New York, NY: Simon & Schus-
ter.
Maxcy, S. (1991). Educational leadership. New York, NY: Bergin
& Garvey.
Mayo, E (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
McElroy, W. (Ed.) (1986). Freedom, feminism and the state. Wash-
ington, DC: Cato Institute.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Meyer, M. (1972). Bureaucratic structure and authority. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Michels, R. (1962). Political parties. New York, NY: Free Press.
Mickelthwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors.
London: Heinemann.
Mieczkowski, B. (1995). The rot at the top. Lanham, MD: Uni-
versity Press of America.
Mitchell, D. (Ed.). (2006). New foundations for knowledge in edu-
cational administration, policy, and politics. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mueller, H.-E. (1984). Bureaucracy, education, and monopoly.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Nitta, K. (2008). The politics of structural educational reform.
Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
Nyberg, D. (1981) Power over power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity Press.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ostrom, V. (1973). The intellectual crisis in American public
administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Page, E., & Wright, V. (1999). Bureaucratic elites in western Euro-
pean states. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Peters, B. (1978). The politics of bureaucracy. New York, NY:
Longman.
Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Priest, D., & St John, E. (Ed.). (2006). Privatization and public
universities. Bloomington IN: University of Indiana Press. 
Pusey, M. (1976). Dynamics of bureaucracy. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Ribbins, P. (Ed.) (2006). Journal of Educational Administration
and History. History and the Study of Administration and Lead-
ership in Education (Special issue).
Richardson, H. (2003). Democratic autonomy. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Ringer, F. (1990). The decline of the German mandarins (2nd ed.)
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Rogers, D. (1968). 110 Livingston Street. New York, NY: Ran-
dom House.
Samier, E. A. (2001). Demandarinisation in the new public
management (pp. 235-263). In E. Hanke & W. Mommsen
(Eds.), Max Webers herrschaftssoziologie: studien zu entstehung
Au: English
und wirkung. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr/Siebeck.
translation.
Samier, E. A. (2005). Toward public administration as a
humanities discipline. Halduskultuur, 6, 6-59. (Reprinted in
F. English (Ed.) Educational leadership and administration,
SAGE, 2009.)
Samier, E. A., & Bates, R. (2006). Aesthetic eimensions of educa-
tional administration and leadership. Milton Keyes, England:
Routledge.
Savoie, D. (1994). Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (2009). Educational governance and administra-
tion (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn.

Shields, J. & Evans, B. (1998). Shrinking the state. Halifax, Brit-
ish Columbia, Canada: Fernwood.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Mac-
millan.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997) Academic capitalism. Baltimore,
MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.
Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1989). Critical perspectives on educational leader-
ship. London: Falmer.
Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1993). A socially critical view of the self-managing
school. London: Falmer.
Strati, A. (1999). Organization and aesthetics. London: SAGE.
Strauss, E. (1961). The ruling servants. New York, NY: Praeger.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New
York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Tichy, N., & Devanna, M. (1986). The transformational leader.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Torstendahl, R. (1991). Bureaucratization in northwestern Europe.
London: Routledge.
Waldo, D. (1968). Scope of the theory of public administration
(pp. 1-26). In J. Charlesworth (Ed.), Theory and practice of
Bureaucratic Theory 907
public administration. Philadelphia, PA: American Academy
of Political and Social Science.
Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (Eds.). (2002). School leadership and
administration. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely cou-
pled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
Wildavsky, A. (1979) Speaking truth to power. New York, NY:
Little Brown.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of public administration. Political
Science Quarterly, 2, 481-507.
Wittfogel, K. (1957). Oriental despotism: A comparative study of
total power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zaleznik, A. (1990) Executive’s guide to motivating people. Chi-
cago, Il: Bonus.
Author Contact Information: Eugenie A. Samier, Faculty of Educa-
tion, The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Phone: 971.(0)55.96.44.295. E-mail: Eugenie.samier@buid.ac.ae
View publication stats