No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Woodrow Wilson long ago recognized the value of the comparative approach in studying public administrative processes. Moreover, in recent years the recognized scope within which fruitful comparisons may be made has been considerably broadened, and public administration has benefited from studies of the experience of large-scale industrial, commercial, and other enterprises. Thus far, however, relatively little attention has been paid by students of public administration to the administrative experience of armies. Military organizations have long dealt with the problem of combining men and materials to produce coördinated and effective action. Out of centuries of experience have emerged certain doctrines, forms, and methods concerning control and coördination which are recognized and accepted by all modern armies. Details and applications change rapidly, but these basic concepts, which have virtually achieved the dignity of principles in their own sphere, change slowly, if at all.
1 “… nowhere else in the whole field of politics, it would seem, can we make use of the historical, comparative method more safely than in this province of administration.” Wilson, Woodrow, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 2, p. 219 (1887)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Cf. Gulick, L. and Urwick, L. (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration (New York, 1937)Google Scholar. A study of the common problems of bureaucracy in government and large commercial enterprises is now being made by Professor Marshall E. Dimock.
3 One reason for the relative lack of attention shown to military experience by students of public administration has doubtless been the scarcity of available and usable information about military methods and doctrines. The present article, which is based chiefly upon information gathered by the author at Washington, D.C., Ft. Benning, Georgia, and Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, in 1935 and 1936 while holding a pre-doctoral field fellowship granted by the Social Science Research Council, provides an analysis of the structural or organizational aspects of internal control and coördination in the United States Army, and suggests certain applications of military experience to the problems of public administration.
4 Art. II, sec. 2.
5 Sec. 5a, as amended by act of June 4, 1920. 41 Stat. at Large 764.
6 Army Regulations, No. 10–15, sec. 2.
7 Ibid., sec. 1 (changes, Aug. 18, 1936).
8 Ibid., sec. 2.
9 Army Regulations, No. 15–5, sec. 5.
10 There are certain officers in the War Department known as the chiefs of the Arms and the Services. Their position in the organization of the Army, and their contributions to the process of internal control and coördination, will be considered more fully below in connection with the discussions of functional organization and staff services. So far as here concerns hierarchical structure, however, it may be said that these officers do not form links in the principal chain of command by which the Army is governed. Instead, they render specialized services of various sorts to line officers and to general staff officers. They are known collectively as the “special staff” of the War Department.
11 Sec. 3, as amended by act of June 4, 1920. 41 Stat. at Large 759.
12 Army Regulations, No. 170-10, sec. 2.
13 Infantry terminology will be employed in naming the lower units.
14 For purposes of national defense planning, a skeleton organization of four armies was created in 1934 by No. 160–10 of Army Regulations.
15 For information about the hierarchical units of command, see Army Regulations, No. 600–620; The Work of the War Department (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1924), pp. 37–38Google Scholar; Manual for Commanders of Large Units (Tentative), II, Organization and Administration (Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas: The Command and General Staff School Press, 1935), pp. 9–19Google Scholar; Organization of the Army, Special Text No. 227, Army Extension Courses (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), pp. 11–14Google Scholar; Military Organization of the United States (Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas: The General Service Schools Press, 1928), pp. 22–31Google Scholar; A Manual for Commanders of Large Units (Provisional), I, Operations (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1930), pp. 1–51Google Scholar.
16 “The Division Commander and His General Staff,” Command, Staff, and Logistics (Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, 1934), pp. 1–2Google Scholar.
17 Cf. Gaus, J. M., “A Theory of Organization in Public Administration,” The Frontiers of Public Administration (Chicago, 1936), p. 75Google Scholar.
18 Organization and Administration, p. 21.
19 Military Organization of the United States, p. 44.
20 Ibid., p. 38.
21 Staff and Logistics, Special Text No. 162, Army Extension Courses (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1933), p. 2Google Scholar.
22 “Special Staff,” Command, Staff, and Logistics (Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, 1934), p. 2Google Scholar.
23 Marx, F. M., “Civil Service in Germany,” Civil Service Abroad (New York, 1935), pp. 179–182Google Scholar.
24 “The Division Commander and His General Staff,” Command, Staff, and Logistics, pp. 9–10Google Scholar.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid., p. 14.
27 Staff Officers' Field Manual, Part I, Staff Data (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 3Google Scholar.
28 Ibid., p. 6.
29 Ibid., p. 10.
30 Ibid., p. 11.
31 Ibid., p. 13.
32 Ibid., p. 14.
33 Army Regulations, No. 10–15, sec. 12.
34 Staff Data, pp. 9–10.
35 “The Division Commander and His General Staff,” Command, Staff, and Logistics, pp. 25–26Google Scholar.
36 Cf. Gaus, J. M., “A Theory of Organization in Public Administration,” The Frontiers of Public Administration, p. 71Google Scholar.
37 Cf. Dimock, Marshall E., “Executive Responsibility,” The Society for the Advancement of Management Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 22–28 (1938)Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.