Writings on public administration go back to ancient civilization.1 The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians left considerable advice on the techniques of management and adminis- tration. So did the civilizations of China, Greece, and Rome. Modern management tech- niques can be traced from Alexander the Great’s use of staff 2 to the assembly-line methods of the arsenal of Venice;3 from the theorizing of Niccolo Machiavelli on the nature of leadership4 to Adam Smith’s advocacy of the division of labor;5 and from Robert Owen’s assertion that “vital machines” (employees) should be given as much attention as “inanimate machines”6 to Charles Babbage’s con- tention that there existed “basic principles of management.”7
The history of the world can be viewed as the rise and fall of public administrative institutions. Those ancient empires that rose and prevailed were those with better administrative institutions than their competitors. Brave soldiers have been plentiful in every society but they were ultimately wasted if not backed up by administrators who can feed and pay them. Marcus Tullius Cicero, the ancient Roman orator, is usually credited with first saying that “the sinews of war are infinite money.”
Rome, like Egypt, Persia, and other empires before it, conquered much of the ancient world (well, at least that centered around the Mediterranean) because it had an organizational doctrine that made its soldiers far more effective than competing forces—and because its legions were backed up by a sophisticated administrative system of supply based on regular if not equitable taxes. The Roman Empire only fell when its legions degenerated into corps of mercenaries and when its supply and tax bases were corrupted. Napoleon was wrong. Armies do not “march on their stomachs,” as he said; they march on the proverbial backs of the tax collectors and on the roads built by administrators. Regular pay allows for discipline. Strict discipline is what makes a mob an army. And a disciplined military, obedient to the leaders of the state, is a precondition for civilization. This is the classic chicken and egg problem. Which comes first—effective public administration or an effective military? The rise and fall of ancient Rome proved that you could not have one without the other.
Early bureaucrats in ancient Rome and modern Europe literally wore uniforms that paralleled military dress. After all, the household servants of rulers traditionally wore livery. It indicated that the wearer was not free but the servant of another. Government administrators are still considered ser- vants in this sense; they are public servants because they, too, have accepted obligations that mean they are not completely free. Indeed, until early in the twentieth century many otherwise civilian public officials in Europe—most notably diplomats—had prescribed uniforms.
Both victorious soldiers and successful managers tend to be inordinately admired and dispropor- tionately rewarded as risk takers. True, the specific risks and rewards are different; but the phenom- enon is the same. They both may have to put their careers, and sometimes significant parts of their anatomy as well, “on the line” to obtain a goal for their state or organization. Notice again the military language for “the line” originally referred to the line of battle where they faced the enemy. This is why line officers today are still those who perform the services for which the organization exists. This is the direct link between the Roman centurion and the fire chief, hospital director, or school principal. Life on the line is still a daily struggle.
It is possible to find most of the modern concepts of management and leadership stated by one or another of the writers of the classical, medieval, and pre-modern world. However, our concern is not with this prehistory of modern management but with the academic discipline and occupational specialty that is U.S. public administration.