An Approach to a Science of Administration
Abstract
Writers on public administration place much emphasis upon the possibilities and importance of discovering and applying scientific principles in their field of study. But very few of them have ventured to state the basic premises upon which they seek to build that science. Many of those whose writings imply that major principles have been discovered announce, not premises, but conclusions, which, regardless of their practical merits, can hardly be called anything but opinions. On the other hand, several scholars seek to escape from errors of commission by avoiding the use of such scientific terms as “principles” or “efficiency.” If they go beyond descriptive analyses to advocate particular plans of organization or methods of procedure, they use terms which denote value judgments, thereby admitting by implication that they are expressing mere opinions. In a few published discourses, basic premises are stated and reasoning is developed therefrom. However, most of those premises—or “principles”—are referred to by name only, such as “the principle of leadership”; they are not stated in terms of precise causal relations which can be verified or which can serve adequately as bases for further reasoning. It may be regarded as unwise to venture a statement of what one considers the basic premises upon which a science of administration may be built. But every body of theory is built upon fundamental assumptions, either expressed or implied. Moreover, a body of theory is complete, and h…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Organizational routines involve the coordination of multiple organizational participants and are not just individual routines performed in the context of an organization.
“As originally conceived by Stene (1940), organizational routines involve the coordination of multiple organizational participants. Thus, organizational routines are not just individual routines that are performed in the context of an organization.”
From Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change (2003) · cites this paper as Stene (1940)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · see citing works
Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.554 · Cited by 1,393 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stene, E. O.
- Affiliations
- University of Kansas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stene, Edwin O.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1940-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1124-1137
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2167233434
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 59.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
- Keywords
- public administration theory, scientific method
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review