Organizational Humanism and Postpositivism 135
have subscribed to this advice: Th ink critically about work. We can now question
structure. Is top-down command really necessary? Is it eff ective? Can hierarchy
be fl attened? Can division of labor be eased?
We can question culture. Are effi ciency and control the only values to be
pursued by bureaucracies, public and private? What about human purpose be-
yond these?
We can question psychology. Do we need to accept the destruction of our self
when we enter employment?
We can question bureaucracy’s devaluation of speech. Surely top-down com-
mands shouted at us in an atmosphere of fear are not the only tools for getting
us to do the work.
Finally, there is the political question. For a while it seemed there was no
alternative to the bureaucratic transformation of politics. Effi ciency and control
had become the standards to measure success even there. Lost was any sense of
political imagination. (1994, 2–3)Critical theory begins with a premise more aligned with the claims for social
justice articulated by Harmon and the PATnet members. As Richard Box (2005,
21) writes, “Critical theory provides an opening for conceptualization and prac-
tice that acknowledges the value-base, normative character of public administra-
tion.” As discussed later in this chapter, postmodern public administration and
critical theory adopt nonpositivist research methodologies, including normative
elements, and oft en rely on narratives to provide insight into what are perceived
as inequities within groups and organizations (see also Oldfi eld 2010). Th e dif-
ference, according to Box, is that critical theory “projects beyond the present”
and describes inequities “as the results of actions taken by those with money and
power” (27). It is for this reason some scholars in the fi eld suggest the interpreta-
tive and normative elements of postpositivism, and the practical implications for
organizational design, are best represented by the term “critical theory” rather
than “postmodern theory.”
Th ose associated with both the interpretative and critical approaches to post-
positivist public administration have tended to also be part of a developmental
training movement. Put very simply, through developmental training individuals
and organizations can more nearly achieve their potential. Training, now oft en
called organizational learning or the learning organization, enables the organi-
zation and the individuals in it to trust more, to listen, and to practice authentic
communication (Argyris 1962; Argyris and Schon 1978; Golembiewski 1972). Th e
purpose of this kind of organizational intervention is to unfreeze bureaucratic ri-
gidity and empower workers to achieve their potential. Organizational interven-
tionists of this type are thought to be educators, researchers, and change agents all
at once (Denhardt 1993). Although it has had its ups and downs over the years,
the organizational development movement is alive and well; in its modern form,