- Teks
- Sejarah
OrthodoxyAs an acceptable model of
Orthodoxy
As an acceptable model of governance, orthodoxy is dead. Orthodoxy (Waldo 1948/2006) was that enduring prescription of neutral public ad- ministration ascribed in the literature to Wilson (separation of politics and administration), Taylor (scientific management), and Weber (hier- archical control). Orthodoxy, at its high point in the decades surround- ing World War II, was a manifestation of the period that recent philosophers have identified as high modernism. We are referring to that point in time when the industrial economy matured and the ideology of technocracy and electoral-style procedural democracy prevailed in cul- ture and politics, a period sometimes called “the American Century.”
Since then, orthodoxy has died a thousand deaths, by a thousand cuts. The ever-apparent discretion exercised by administrators in policy for- mulation—not only implementation—makes a mockery of the Wilsonian dichotomy. Taylorism has been savaged by at least three generations of human relations social psychologists. The effort to sublimate political conflict into technical-rational domains was only sometimes successful. Strict chain-of-command hierarchy has been challenged by humanistic management practices, Japanese management theory, and participative decision making.
As an acceptable model of governance, orthodoxy is dead. Orthodoxy (Waldo 1948/2006) was that enduring prescription of neutral public ad- ministration ascribed in the literature to Wilson (separation of politics and administration), Taylor (scientific management), and Weber (hier- archical control). Orthodoxy, at its high point in the decades surround- ing World War II, was a manifestation of the period that recent philosophers have identified as high modernism. We are referring to that point in time when the industrial economy matured and the ideology of technocracy and electoral-style procedural democracy prevailed in cul- ture and politics, a period sometimes called “the American Century.”
Since then, orthodoxy has died a thousand deaths, by a thousand cuts. The ever-apparent discretion exercised by administrators in policy for- mulation—not only implementation—makes a mockery of the Wilsonian dichotomy. Taylorism has been savaged by at least three generations of human relations social psychologists. The effort to sublimate political conflict into technical-rational domains was only sometimes successful. Strict chain-of-command hierarchy has been challenged by humanistic management practices, Japanese management theory, and participative decision making.
0/5000
Orthodoxy
As an acceptable model of governance, orthodoxy is dead. Orthodoxy (Waldo 1948/2006) was that enduring prescription of neutral public ad- ministration ascribed in the literature to Wilson (separation of politics and administration), Taylor (scientific management), and Weber (hier- archical control). Orthodoxy, at its high point in the decades surround- ing World War II, was a manifestation of the period that recent philosophers have identified as high modernism. We are referring to that point in time when the industrial economy matured and the ideology of technocracy and electoral-style procedural democracy prevailed in cul- ture and politics, a period sometimes called “the American Century.”
Since then, orthodoxy has died a thousand deaths, by a thousand cuts. The ever-apparent discretion exercised by administrators in policy for- mulation—not only implementation—makes a mockery of the Wilsonian dichotomy. Taylorism has been savaged by at least three generations of human relations social psychologists. The effort to sublimate political conflict into technical-rational domains was only sometimes successful. Strict chain-of-command hierarchy has been challenged by humanistic management practices, Japanese management theory, and participative decision making.
As an acceptable model of governance, orthodoxy is dead. Orthodoxy (Waldo 1948/2006) was that enduring prescription of neutral public ad- ministration ascribed in the literature to Wilson (separation of politics and administration), Taylor (scientific management), and Weber (hier- archical control). Orthodoxy, at its high point in the decades surround- ing World War II, was a manifestation of the period that recent philosophers have identified as high modernism. We are referring to that point in time when the industrial economy matured and the ideology of technocracy and electoral-style procedural democracy prevailed in cul- ture and politics, a period sometimes called “the American Century.”
Since then, orthodoxy has died a thousand deaths, by a thousand cuts. The ever-apparent discretion exercised by administrators in policy for- mulation—not only implementation—makes a mockery of the Wilsonian dichotomy. Taylorism has been savaged by at least three generations of human relations social psychologists. The effort to sublimate political conflict into technical-rational domains was only sometimes successful. Strict chain-of-command hierarchy has been challenged by humanistic management practices, Japanese management theory, and participative decision making.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Orthodoxy
As an acceptable model of governance, orthodoxy is dead. Orthodoxy (Waldo 1948/2006) was that enduring prescription of neutral public ad- ministration ascribed in the literature to Wilson (separation of politics and administration), Taylor (scientific management), and Weber (hier- archical control). Orthodoxy, at its high point in the decades surround- ing World War II, was a manifestation of the period that recent philosophers have identified as high modernism. We are referring to that point in time when the industrial economy matured and the ideology of technocracy and electoral-style procedural democracy prevailed in cul- ture and politics, a period sometimes called “the American Century.”
Since then, orthodoxy has died a thousand deaths, by a thousand cuts. The ever-apparent discretion exercised by administrators in policy for- mulation—not only implementation—makes a mockery of the Wilsonian dichotomy. Taylorism has been savaged by at least three generations of human relations social psychologists. The effort to sublimate political conflict into technical-rational domains was only sometimes successful. Strict chain-of-command hierarchy has been challenged by humanistic management practices, Japanese management theory, and participative decision making.
As an acceptable model of governance, orthodoxy is dead. Orthodoxy (Waldo 1948/2006) was that enduring prescription of neutral public ad- ministration ascribed in the literature to Wilson (separation of politics and administration), Taylor (scientific management), and Weber (hier- archical control). Orthodoxy, at its high point in the decades surround- ing World War II, was a manifestation of the period that recent philosophers have identified as high modernism. We are referring to that point in time when the industrial economy matured and the ideology of technocracy and electoral-style procedural democracy prevailed in cul- ture and politics, a period sometimes called “the American Century.”
Since then, orthodoxy has died a thousand deaths, by a thousand cuts. The ever-apparent discretion exercised by administrators in policy for- mulation—not only implementation—makes a mockery of the Wilsonian dichotomy. Taylorism has been savaged by at least three generations of human relations social psychologists. The effort to sublimate political conflict into technical-rational domains was only sometimes successful. Strict chain-of-command hierarchy has been challenged by humanistic management practices, Japanese management theory, and participative decision making.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- OrthodoxyAs an acceptable model of gover
- You make any dress come to life, my dear
- Hoe gaat het kom net thuis ,gewerkt
- Btw kamu lahir tahun 1997
- Es könnte sein
- [Her sniffs turn into laughter and joy.]
- there love to u is like glittering ring
- Keep distance
- Jullie dochtertje heet
- cepat datang
- Ich vermisse fur dich und ihn
- Es könnte sein, dass fur mich
- there love to u is like glittering ring
- Es könnte sein, dass fur mich
- I'm just gonna say australia y?wat about
- Es könnte sein, dass fur mich
- saya kurang mengerti
- Antadziruki
- saya kurang mengerti
- Antadziruki
- Selama ini program-program pengelolaan s
- yang mana?
- besok saya pasang foto anak saya
