rPostmodern Theory poses serious challenges to anyone who try to explain its major precepts in a straightforward fashion. In the beginning of chapter 6 (The Public Administration Theory Primer, 3rd edition), the writers briefly give an historical overview to how Postmodern theory has progressed since 1948. The rise of postmodern public administration theory had its origin in the pioneering work of Chester Barnard, an American public administrator, and his interpretation of the results of the Hawthorne experiments. Indeed, both Bernard’s work and his interpretation of the results of the Hawthorne experiments marked a big change in thinking about work and productivity. By keeping these facts in mind, one can infer that Postmodern Theory refers to continuity, change, and balance (equilibrium). This thought process is known as “gradualism.” Gradualism, which rely on a strategy of gradual reform rather than sudden change, is one of the most effective method of reform and change in public management (Frederickson, et al.). In other words, things can keep changing but they always maintain their initial roots or structures.
There are six core ideas in Postmodern public administration theory: (1) Public administrators and public agencies are not and cannot be either neutral or objective, (2) Technology is often dehumanizing, (3) Bureaucratic hierarchy is often ineffective as an organizational strategy, (4) Bureaucratic tend toward goal displacement and survival, (5) Cooperation, consensus, and democratic administration are more likely than the simple exercise of administrative authority to result in organizational effectiveness, (6) Modern concepts of public administration must be built on post behavioral and postpositivist logic—more democratic, adaptable, and responsive to changing social, economic, and political circumstances (Marini 1971). In a nutshell, Postmodernists base their quest for greater imagination in public administration by rejecting rationality and rationalization. They eventually stress the ideas of teamwork and conformity, and are most agreed to the weakness of the nation-state and to an open and direct criticism of the state. Postmodernists do not attempt to refine their thoughts about what is right or wrong, true or false, good or evil. Meanwhile, they believe that there is not such a thing as absolute truth; two people could define truth in totally conflicting ways but both could still be correct. Certainly, Postmodern public administration theory can be most easily understood as the antithesis of Positivism and the logic of objective social science.
Furthermore, in attempt to understand Postmodern Theory, main ideas of Organizational Humanism and paradigms, Postpositivism and its application to public administration, criticism of Postmodern theory, and postmodern perspectives in public administration were discussed throughout the chapter. First, to understand Postmodern theory, the authors argue that one must begin with the postmodern characterization of modernity or high modernity. Besides, it is necessary to examine the difference between modernity and postmodernity because models that conversely effected the practices of public administration as description and prescription always tend to get mixed. Generally, Postmodern theory looks rather like a combination of the many modern elements of institutional theory described in Chapter 4, the sense making logic described in Chapter 7 on decision making theory, and the public management theory described in Chapter 5. Modernity, in the postmodern perspective, is primarily concerned with objective knowledge and its development whereas Postmodernity is more concerned with values and the search for truth than in characterizations of knowledge. In sum, modernity is described as expressions of the limits of Particularism (Particularism has to do with the emphasis on government in public administration and is overly preoccupied with efficiency, fairness, leadership, management, and organization), Scientism (it shows that science has had a lot to do with developing contemporary public administration theory), Technologism (is refers as the technology of public administration, but postmodernists worry about the dehumanizing aspect of both low-tech bureaucratic functioning and high-tech systems), and Enterprise (a call for the public sector to be more “businesslike”). To sum up, from the postmodern perspective, criticisms of modernist public administration include (1) its overreliance on the logic and epistemology of objective rational social science; (2) its implicit support for authoritarian, unfair, and unjust regimes; (3) its bias toward American particularism; (4) its too-great attachment to functional management and organization technologies; and (5) its willingness to be overly influenced by the capitalist logic of enterprise (Frederickson, et al., page 149). Second, the authors talk about the Feminist Perspectives on Public Administration. According to them, the service or helping perspective of process approaches to bureaucratic functioning is thought to be feminine because the female reformers of the time developed their own understanding of science, one that is centered not around objectivity and rigor, but around connectedness. Somehow, Feminists see leadership differently. The feminist perspective looks a lot like the logic of democratic administration found in postpositivist public administration. In its most extreme form, it would favor the leaderless organization. In addition, from the feminist perspective, the images of the public administrators as guardian, hero, or high-profile leader are masculine. Also, the application of fairness, compassion, benevolence, and civic-mindedness are thought to be more feminine. Lastly, the question of whether Postmodern theory is fading away or is still useful as a theory is emphasized in the concluding paragraphs of the chapter. Lastly, the question of whether Postmodern theory is fading away or is still useful as a theory is emphasized in the concluding paragraphs of the chapter.
Overall, Postmodern theory has influenced public administration and governance in various ways. Most importantly because it brought forward new perspective on public administration and governance. Postmodernists view democratic constitutions as flawed in substance, impossible to uphold, and unfair in principle. They believe that the capitalistic economic system lacks equal distribution of goods and salary. While the few rich prosper, the mass populace becomes impoverished. However, over the years, Postmodern theory continues to have so many adherents to its philosophy. It brought awareness of possible alternative models in public administration. Likewise, it also brought attention to the constructed and dependent nature of public administration because postmodernist reflections were often used to show limitations, shortcomings, or even failures of certain models in public administration. Understanding governance as network instead of as hierarchies, for example, has stimulated many approaches that aim to develop and manage networks. In the end, when it comes to methodological perspectives and the contributions of postmodern approaches to the field, scholars have provided thoughtful and provocative analyses of the problem of administrative responsibility, trust, gender, legitimacy and a wide range of other issues in the field.