fledged text in the field.

Although Willoughby's

Principles was as fully American Progressive in

tone as White's Introduction, its title alone indicaled the new thrust of public administration: That
certain scientific principles of administration existed; they could be discovered; and that administrators
would be expert in their work if they learned how to apply these principles. It was during the phase
represented by Paradigm 2 that public adrinistration reached its reputational zenith.

Public administrationists were courted by industry and government alike during the 1930s and early
1940s for their managerial knowledge. Thus the focus of the field its

essential expertise in the form of administrative principles waxed, while no one thought too seriously
about its locus. Indeed, the locus of public administration was everywhere, since principles were
principles and administration was administration, at least according to the perceptions of

Paradigm 2 By the very fact that the principles of administration were indeed principles- that is, by
definition, they worked" without exception in any administrative setting, regardless of culture, function,
environment, mission, or institutional framework-it therefore followed that they could be applied
successfully anywhere, Furthermore, because public administrationists had contributed as

much if not more to the formulation of "administrative principles" as had researchers in any other field
of inquiry, it also followed that public administrationists should lead the academic pack in applying them
to "real-world" organizations, public or otherwise. Among the more significant works relevant to this
phase were Mary Parker Folket's Creative Experience (1924), Henri Fayol's industrial and General
Management (1930), and James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley's Principles of Organizaton (1939), all of
which delineated varying numbers of overarching administrative principles, Organization theorists often
dub this school of thought "administrative management, " since it focused on the upper hierarchical
echelons of organizations. A related literature that preceded the work in administrative management
somewhat in time, but which was under continuing development in business schools, focused on the
assembly line. Researchers in this stream, often called "scientific management, “developed principles of
the efficient physical movement for optimal assembly line efficiency” The most notable contributions to
this literature were Frederick W. Taylor's Principles of Scientific Managemenr (191 1) and various works
by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, While obviously related in concept, scientific management had less effect
on public administration during its principles phase because it focused on lower-level personnel in the
organization. The lack of locus, if not, perhaps, the sharpening new focus of public administration during
this period, made itself evident within the university community, In 1935, the Public Administration
Clearing House held a conference at Princeton University, and the conference's report was radically
different from the report issued in 1914 by the Committee on Practical Training for Public Service of the
American Political Science Association. Suddenly political scientists had great difficities with the idea of
founding separate schools of public administration and they believed instead that existing courses in
political science departments and in other relevant disciplines, such as law, economics, and
management, provided, if they were correctly combined, an education that was entirely adequate for
budding government bureaucrats, The conference, therefore, found itself unable to find any single
formula which warrants the establishment of an isolated college or university program which alone will
emphasize preparation exclusively for the public service." Only a “university-wide approach" would be
satisfactory, since the problem of public administra Only a “university-wide approach" would be
satisfactory, since the problem of public administradministration education exceeded the “confines of
any single departmen or special institute or school” As a more modern scholar has since observed. “A
logical consequence of this reasoning" as expressed by the Princeton Conference of 1935, “could have
been the elimination of public administration as a discrete field of study within the universities,"12 Such
were the dangers of not having a firm and stationary intellectua) locus on which to build a curriculum,
Despite these difficulties, however, scholars who identified with the study of public administration
nonetheless found it ussful to establish, four years after the publication of the Princeton report, the
American Society for public administration (ASPA), which continues to function as the nation's primary
association of scholars and practitioners of public administration, and as the sponsoring organization of
the field's premier journal, Public Administration Review. But the creation of ASPA was less a response
to the difficulties that the field of public administration was having within universities generally, and
more a reaction to what public administrationists were experiencing within political science
departments specifically. As Dwight Waldo has put it, "The sense that political science as an academic
discipline did not adequately represent and nurture the needs of those interested in improving
performance in public administration was a strong motivating force in creating the new organization. In
retrospect, it is clear that ASPA represented above all an attempt to loosen public administration from
the restraints of political science. But the founding of ASPA was more than that: It was also an attempt
to loosen public administration from the restraints of the citizenry. ASPA was created by practitioners
and scholars of public administration for practitioners and scholars of public administration; its founding
also was a secession from the Government Research Association, which was composed not only of
practitioners and scholars, but also of taxpayers, citizen-based government reform groups, elected
politicians, and philanthropists. Darrell L. Pugh, ASPA's historian and archivist, puts it cogently; “ASPA's
formation…symbolized an end to the historic union by facilitating its fragmentation in favor of a new
coalition based on professionalism." Professionalism is, by definition, a phenomenon predicated on
planned career ladders, closely held in-group values, an eschewing of popular "politics," and intimate
ties with the universities; ASPA was all of these. As with any proposed secession, its execution was not
easy. Public administrationist Donald C. Stone recalls the emotions involved at ASPA's founding:
"Questions of loyalty, sedition, intrigue, separatism, and schism kindled emotions is Golembiewski has
summed it up: the birth of ASPA was "an expression of the feit noeds of the burgeoning graduates and
faculty of suddenly virile programs of public administration. So much was at stake, practically as well as
intellectually The secession succeeded, and it symbolized public administration's conscious need to
becorne a profession and a discipline. But professions have their own orthodoxies, and the "high noon
of orthodoxy," as it has often been called, of public administration was marked by the publication in
1937 of Luther H. Gulick and Lyndall Urwick's Papers on the Science of Administration, This landrark
study also marked the high noon of prestige for public administration. Gulick and Urwick were
confidantes of President Franklin D, Roosevelt and advised him on a variety of matters managerial; their
Papers were a report to the President's Committee on Administrative Science. Principles were important
to Gulick and Urwick, but where those principles were applied was not; locus was favored over locus,
and no bones were made about it. As they sald in the Papers, It is the general thesis of this paper that
there are principles which can be arrived at inductively from the study of human organizations which
should govern arrangements for human association of any kind. These principies can be studied as a
technical question, irrespective of the purpose of the enterprise, the personnel comprisins it, or any
constitutignal, political or social theory underlying its creation. Gulick and Urwick promoted seven
principles of administration and, in so doing, gave students of public administration that snappy
anagram,

POSDCORB, POSDCORB was the final expres-

sion of administrative principles. It stood for:

lanning

rganizing

taffing

irecting

ordinating

eporting

udgeting

That was public administration in 1937