A NEW TAXONOMY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS Available to Purchase

The state of contemporary theory in administration is contentious. This is most evident in the subset of educational administration where controversy rages as evidenced in the Griffiths‐Greenfield debate and its variations. To some extent this argument can be understood through tendencies which Whitehead described as simplemindedness and muddleheadedness but at a more elementary and fundamental level the divergences of opinion can be traced to defects in conceptual mapping. One of these has to do with the taxonomy of administrative process. The article offers a brief listing and critique of attempts at process analysis and then suggests a version (P3M3) which would avoid errors of logical typing and which would allow for a more sophisticated and logically accurate treatment of the terrain. This postulates a non‐rigid and elisible sequence from philosophy through planning, politics, mobilization, and management to monitoring and evaluative feedback. Such a sequence is consistent with conventional wisdom on the politics‐administration and administration‐management distinctions but it affords the possibility for some clinical diagnosis of organizational pathology and for the re‐interpretation of administrative practice. In particular, the article draws attention to the match between the taxonomy and cognitive, value, and reality correlates. Cognitive correlates are based on the work of deBono while value and reality correlates are based on the work of the writer. An important implication of the logic is the peculiar significance of the “synapse” or connection between the fields of administration and management. Leadership would appear to be a function which occurs in mid‐cycle rather than in the Platonic or orthodox view which places it at the initiation of cyclic process.