see BellD., “Work and its Discontents” in The End of Ideology.Glencoe: Free Press, 1960, pp. 222–262.
2.
DubinR. (ed.), Human Relations in Administration.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1961, p. 191.
3.
GarrettJ., Managing British Government.London: Penguin, 1972, p. 68.
4.
DaltonM., “Conflicts Between Staff and Line Managerial Officers”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 1950, pp. 342–351.
5.
FreidsonE., Editorial Foreword to Special Issue on the Professions, American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 14, No. 4, March-April 1971, pp. 467–474.
6.
see ChildJ., British Management Thought.London: Allen and Unwin, 1969, Ch. 7.
7.
KornhauserW. H., Scientists and Industry: Conflict and Accommodation.Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963, p. 4.
8.
HobsbawnE. J., Industry and Empire.London: Penguin, 1969, pp. 214–8
9.
GalbraithJ. K., The New Industrial State.London: Hamish Hamilton, 1967, p. 80.
10.
The concept of technocracy is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “the organization of the social order based on principles established by technical experts”. According to Meynard, it was first coined in the United States, after the first world war, to describe a system of economic thought inspired by the kind of rational analysis at the basis of the physical sciences. See MeynardJ., Technocracy.London: Faber, 1968, p. 1.
11.
LeavittH. J. and WhislerT. L., “Management in the 1980's”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36, No. 6, November-December, 1958, pp. 41–48.
12.
see GarrettJ., op. cit., p. 68.
13.
WoodwardJ., Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice.London: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 21.
14.
Ibid., p. 214.
15.
see CrichtonA., Personnel Management in Context.London: Batsford, 1968, p. 40.
16.
For further discussion of the differences between the ‘general practitioner’, ‘specialist’ and ‘specialised’ worker see FriedmannG., The Anatomy of Work.London: Heinemann, 1961, Chapter 6.
17.
CrozierM., The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, London: Tavistock Publications, 1964, pp. 164–165.