er was the first to see bureaucracy as the major problem of industrial society. He saw the bureaucratization of society as inevitable, but he also decried the fact and saw the problem of responsibility in a bureaucracy very clearly:
It was undesirable because it stood in the way of true democracy and the development of self-responsible, socially active citizens, and because it led to their "passive" democratization, that is, to their "levelling" (Jacoby, 1973, 147).
He also pointed out the sort of mentality that would develop within the bureaucracy:
The mind of bureaucracy and the reaction of those who are governed by it form a closed sphere within which the atmosphere of the administered world is generated (Jacoby, 1973, 152).
Denhardt (1984) notes the connection between theory and practice when dealing with issues of the bureaucracy. He notes that in recent years the traditional separation of theory and practice in public administration has become even more pronounced as academicians and practitioners, always wary of one another, have become openly hostile. Denhardt rightly points out that this situation limits our understanding of public organizations and our actions within public organizations. His intent is to bring together theory and practice within a theoretical framework for bureaucracy and public administration.
Denhardt is a good beginning for discussion because he details the history of bureaucratic theory, examines the nature of public organizations, considers different models of organization, and examines the practical operation of public organizations. His attempt to bring together theory and practice is also important for what it says about each and about the need to fuse the two in a more coherent fashion for the benefit of both. Denhardt shows how important theory is for practitioners even when they are hostile to it, just as he shows how theory is formed and shaped by practitioners in the choi...