T HE proliferation of courses in public administration has made it possible to provide training in practically every conceivable phase of the field. The gamut of instruction includes administrative law, personnel techniques, budget operations, planning and housing, correctional administration, human relations, and international administration, to mention only the more common offerings. With each passing year, students completing the college and university sequences in this field represent an increasing level of professional competence in their knowledge and grasp of administrative concepts and techniques. Pleasing as this has been to the academician and to the employing governmental agencies, it should not be permitted to obscure our failure to provide commensurately useful instruction in an equally important aspect of the subject-the art of administrative survival. Only in pure theory is the implementation of governmental policy the sole concern of the administrator. From his point of view, the administrative structure is also the scene of an unending and sometimes desperate battle for personal survival, power, and prestige. In large part, his career depends upon his skill at the game of bureaucratic realpolitik, i.e., his mastery of the administrative version of gets what, when, and how. The public employee who lacks at least an elementary comprehension of the major operational concepts and objectives of administrative realpolitik is professionally handicapped, no matter the measure of his other qualifications. Scanning the literature of American public administration, anyone familiar with the realities of bureaucratic existence is struck by the almost total absence of any dispassionate analysis of the nature and importance of administrative realpolitik. While the scholarly commentators have given increasing recognition and emphasis to the importance of individual motivation in the administrative process, their discussion of realpolitik has been descriptive rather than systematic.' Much has been said about a philosophy of administration2 but the possible relationship between such a philosophy and the practice of realpolitik has been largely ignored. A few novelists have dealt with the subject in a skillful and highly perceptive manner, but the fictional approach is, at best, an inadequate substitute for the systematic dissection and analysis which the academician