Introduction
Public administration is an important part of any organization and institution. It deals more with the smooth running of an organization, an institution or a business. Post traditionalism helps in reviewing the modern ways of reasoning in the public administration sector. It shows changes that have taken place and how they have affected the rules and policies of public administration. This paper takes a look at the main discussion of the authors with respect to current methods of public administration, how post traditionalism may lead to a more convincing interpretation of post modern ways of living and socializing and what they summarize about the recent years in the public administration practice.
Discussion
Miller and Fox (2007) aimed at confronting the recent philosophy of civic rules about administration in relation to current circumstances showed that rules such as principals of public administration, legitimate methods of conduct and collective working are not allowed. This is for the sake of developing a dialogue oriented method of public administration (Miller & Fox, 2007). In the book, the authors also discuss clear cut rules and practices that have taken center stage in this area of public administration. The two authors argue that there must be a room for speech and dialogue in every public administration setting. There has to be a chance for the involved people to discuss their thoughts and opinions at length. The dialogue must have utmost honesty from both sides. It must be explicit, specific and up to the point and should not go out of the intended goal, or wander away from the situation at hand and should focus on achieving both the long term and short term objectives. The people in the discussion should be willing to be attentive to the matter at hand. No one should encourage any form of misunderstanding or show lack of interest or even try to derail the dialogue in any negative way. Instead, they should be prepared and have the ability to come up with a concrete decision towards the solution of the problem at hand. In such discussions no idlers, joy riders or non-vision oriented people should be allowed. Thus, the authors mainly argue that for successful dialogue to take place the people involved must have a common objective, vision, and mission. They should be willing to participate fully, reason together and come up with a coherent solution to the issue at hand. They should be open minded and be ready to deal with any outcome of the dialogue in the most mature way. These they say are the merits of communication and are at each person’s disposal at free of cost. Fox and Miller (2007) say that when participation in policy formation takes on these mentioned procedures and regulations, there will be an uncompromised and legal administration of democratic dialogue. This creates harmony and a peaceful environment. It also reflects a positive attitude and good work ethics in any public administration organization.
The arguments of the content of this study are perceptive and quite clear. They have a lot of reflection on what is going on in the current way of life. This is because most of our modern societies are becoming more and more post-modern. The change is very rapid and with it comes an equivalent problem that affects both the community and the administration. In most administrative cases most of the employees, employers and other top figures of authority have always wanted to have a voice in their areas of duty. This calls for a democratic method of administration. Democracy can be achieved only if dialogue is allowed to prevail. In places where there is no dialogue the process of administration tends to be so authoritative and most people tend to rebel against such policies because in authoritative environments the interests of the people are not represented fully. To cub these problems, the modern day public administrators have decided to embrace and apply the discourse policy of governance. The people involved always have a common interest, and common goals and objectives they would like to attain. They then engage in a discussion with the aim of solving the problem and settling the situation once and for all. On these occasions, every individual has the right to contribute towards the discussion (Fox & Miller, 2007).
Most administration sectors these days have no room for idlers and only incorporate in their decision making process those who certainly contribute and help in the achievement of their set goals and objectives. The discursive policy of administration is a very reliable method because it is noted that there is no reality in postmodernism. This is because all that is referred to are discussed, thus they are feedbacks that are arrived at after an intensive dialogue involving more than one person. These are not hard facts but people’s ideas and opinions. It is noted that postmodernism does not take into account common assumptions geared towards deducing certainty in wider sense. This is absolutely understandable because how correct a statement is has nothing to do with how it is translated and on the other hand presumptions do not signify the entire reality. This is because they are just factors to guide us in the undertakings to understand communal vastness (Fox & Miller, 2007).
On the contrary, theories are usually personal findings and they do not guarantee that they are totally true or false. It is in order to scrutinize it so that it can be revised, reconstructed or better still be fully abandoned if it does not fit the peoples beliefs. The main problem in the post modern approach to public administration is the fact that it is bringing back the application haphazard, unordered and disagreeable methods of public administration. This is what most societies have perceived to be the truth at risk. Thus people will have to face the consequences of communalized methods of public administration because they will not be able to deal with it. Thus, it is more appropriate and more practical for modern public administrators to go the dialogue way.
Fox and Miller (2007) conclude that the best thing to do in public administration is to have the dialogue method where people air their views as they aspire to solve the issue at hand. In coming up with these discussions it is good to be keen on the people invited to the discussion. Thus, they should be sound minded, goal oriented, and should share the same mission and vision. The people involved should be positive minded and ready to accept any prevailing changes. This is what is needed for the success of public administration in the twenty first century. The twenty first century pubic administrators should not go the communal way as this is very complex and is accompanied with unnecessary problems. Instead, their main aim should be to attain down-to-business bearing of actions. They should also be good listeners and learn to follow instructions and be able to deliver. Listening enables people to draw proper and mature conclusions. No one can deliver if you are not a good listener. Listening is the major factor that promotes togetherness and that is required the most in the method of dialogue. Postmodernists argue that since communal realism is disorderly and very relative, any hypothesis that tries to broaden its meaning is useless and will fail a lot. It sees itself as the only legitimate theory and cannot be surpassed by any other theory in the system of public administration.
Conclusion
Fox and Miller (2007) support a wider use of democracy in their discussion. They argue that the nature of public administration should be democratic with equal rights for both parties involved. There should be a common platform for discussion, shared interests and goals. Everything that has more advantages must also have a disadvantage, and the discussion from these two authors lacks one very important aspect of dialogue and democracy, that is, the use of power. But they will have to be excused since the authors are theoreticians who give no credit to theory. In as much as democracy and dialogue is the way to go, it is advisable that the administrators should not be political unless the matter at hand is of political nature. This is because politics usually tends to have a negative impact on most issues.
Reference
Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. (2007). Post modern public administration. New York: M. E Sharpe.