The H ear t of the P rofession: U nderstanding P ublic … Jour nal of P ublic Affairs E ducation...

Journal of Public Affairs Education 375

The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public

Service Values

Anthony DeForest Molina and Cassandra L. McKeown University of South Dakota

ABSTRACT

When NASPAA adopted new accreditation standards in 2009, it effectively placed public service values at the heart of the public administration curriculum. The efficacy of this approach is directly tied to the use that administrators make of public service values in the field. To explore whether and how public service values influence administrative behavior and decision making, this study used survey and qualitative interview data from a sample of 52 Midwestern state and local public administrators. Additionally, it used grounded theory methodology to develop a theoretical model that explains the link between public service values and the administrative behavior and decision making of practitioners. Data and conclusions drawn from the interviews, along with the results from a survey of administrative values, led us to conclude that administrators utilize a combination of ethical, professional, democratic, and human values to maintain legitimacy. In the public administrative context, legitimacy was understood by administrators to include personal credibility, professional competence, respect for democratic principles, and the ability to maintain positive relationships with citizens and colleagues. The article concludes with suggestions for further incorporation of public service values into the public administration curriculum.

In October of 2009, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) adopted a new set of accreditation standards for degree programs in public affairs and administration. These new standards emphasize the importance of public service values as a way of distinguishing these programs from other types of professional degree programs, such as business administration. Under the new standards,

NASPAA expects an accredited program to be explicit about the public service values to which it gives priority; to clarify the ways

JPAE 18(2), 375–396

376 Journal of Public Affairs Education

in which it embeds these values in its internal governance; and to demonstrate that its students learn the tools and competencies to apply and take these values into consideration in their professional activities. (NASPAA, 2009, p. 4)

In so doing, NASPAA seeks to employ the accreditation process as a means to promote public service values as the “heart of the profession” (p. 4).

Such a move should come as no surprise given the increasing attention that public service values are being given in the field (e.g., Bozeman, 2007; Christensen, Goerdel, & Nicholson-Crotty, 2011; Jorgenson, 1999; Kernaghan, 2003; Menzel, 2003; van der Wal & Huberts, 2008; Van Wart, 1998). Yet, despite this increased attention, there is no clear consensus about the specific role that values play in the day-to-day behavior and decision making of administrators. For example, a large body of research has emerged that explores the relationship between values, organizational culture, and the role that leadership plays in promoting particular values (e.g., Fairholm & Fairholm, 2009; Getha-Taylor, 2009; Schein, 1992; Selznick, 1957; ). In this vein, Posner and Schmidt (1994) have argued that the values held by executives “serve as silent power for understanding interpersonal and organizational life” (p. 24). Other research, however, has found that the extent to which values can be managed within organizations is less clear (Rouillard & Giroux, 2005). Paarlberg and Perry (2007), for example, point out that “employees are motivated by broad societal and cultural values,” and will respond to managerial efforts to impose organizational values only to the extent that they are perceived as “being within the zone of these existing [societal and cultural] values” (p. 405). Furthermore, the task of identifying a unique set of public service values has proven to be difficult (Rutgers, 2008). This may be due to the array of competing and sometimes incommensurable values with which public administrators must contend. (Spicer, 2001; Wagenaar, 1999). Thus, as Van Wart (1998) has argued, the challenge for public administrators is “to achieve a mixture of values in a workable gestalt or whole” that, in turn, requires an ongoing “dialectic because of legitimate competition of values and inevitable shifts in priority” (p. xviii).

Assuming that public service values are indeed a distinctive feature of the profession, and notwithstanding the difficulties associated with the task, public administration educators, students, and practitioners alike stand to benefit richly from research directed toward identifying the range of public service values, along with the development of tools to incorporate them into public decision making (Bozeman, 2007; Mandell, 2009). In fact, a growing body of literature has emerged that addresses the importance of incorporating values into the public administration curriculum and that describes numerous ways in which values may be creatively explored in the classroom (e.g., Hartmus,

A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown


2008; Peters & Filipova, 2009; Shareef, 2008; Stout, 2009). The most notable recent example here, of course, is found in the final report issued by the Task Force on Educating for Excellence in the Public Administration Degree of the American Society for Public Administration (Henry, Goodsell, Lynn Jr., Stivers, & Wamsley, 2009). The work of the task force, along with similar efforts to place public service values at the heart of the curriculum, is an important step in further refining our understanding of public administration as a profession. But all of this raises an important threshold question: What do we mean when we say “public service values?”

Defining Public Service ValuesA particularly helpful way of thinking about public service values is the

conceptualization of them as what Dwight Waldo (1984) called “criteria for action” (Molina, 2009). As Denhardt and Denhardt (2006) have pointed out, public administration is action oriented. Values not only inform our attitudes about the ends to which we should aspire, but they also present standards of conduct that inform how we ought to go about achieving those ends. As Rokeach explains (1968),

Once a value is internalized it becomes, consciously or unconsciously, a standard or criterion for guiding action, for developing and maintaining attitudes toward relevant objects and situations, for justifying one’s own and others’ actions and attitudes, for morally judging self and others and for comparing oneself with others. (p. 16)

Kenneth Kernaghan (2003) has argued that the field of public service values may be grouped into four categories including ethical, democratic, professional, and people (human) values. It is worth noting that this categorization is consistent with the manner in which values are described in the new NASPAA standards. Moreover, in calling for degree programs to “demonstrably emphasize public service values” in their mission, governance, and curriculum, the new NASPAA (2009) standards reflect an action-oriented conceptualization of these four value categories. This is particularly clear where the standards state that public service values include “pursuing the public interest with accountability and transparency” (democratic values); “serving professionally with competence, efficiency, and objectivity” (professional values); “acting ethically so as to uphold the public trust” (ethical values); and “demonstrating respect, equity, and fairness in dealings with citizens and fellow public servants” (human values) (p. 2; emphasis added). In short, NASPAA’s public service values involve more than beliefs, ideals, and principles; they also involve actions that are motivated by a concern for democratic, professional, ethical, and human values.

The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values


If NASPAA-accredited degree programs are to successfully incorporate public service values into the curriculum, understanding the role they play in the day-to-day work of public administrators is crucial. This article seeks to contribute to that understanding. To that end, a mixed methods research design used a survey instrument to identify the values considered most important by public administrators. Additionally, grounded theory methods were used to analyze narrative data gathered through in-depth qualitative interviews to develop a set of theoretical propositions about the role these values play in public service. We present those findings here and then conclude with a few examples of how public service values can be effectively incorporated into the classroom.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

ParticipantsThe participants for this study included 52 state and local public

administrators in the Midwest region of the United States. Participants were recruited by using theoretical sampling methods; a type of purposive sampling technique (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This technique enables the researcher to select participants based on their ability to contribute to the development of the theoretical constructs under study. As Corbin and Strauss (2008) have put it, “The purpose of theoretical sampling is to collect data from places, people, and events that will maximize opportunities to develop concepts in terms of their properties and dimensions, uncover variations, and identify relationships between concepts” (p. 143). In this case, the constructs include the range of public service values and the role that these values play in the behavior and decision making of public administrators. Therefore, participants from a variety of public sector roles and organizational types were selected based on their ability to provide breadth and depth to the sample. The resulting sample included participants at the executive, middle management, and front-line levels of public organizations. Table 1 presents the occupational distribution of the participants.

Research MaterialsThe survey instrument was adapted largely from van der Wal and Huberts

(2008) as a way of identifying which values were considered most important by the public administrators who participated in this study. In addition to providing a means by which the values could be ranked, the survey design was intended to provide a common understanding of the values under consideration. To facilitate this goal, each value was defined for participants in order to provide a uniform set of operational definitions. Twenty of the values included in this research research were adapted from van der Wal and Huberts (2008), who constructed a set of organizational values through the use of a content analysis procedure that identified the values most commonly cited in the academic literature. Five of



Table 1.Occupational Distribution of Participants (n = 52)

Local Government (n = 30)

City Manager 6

Finance Officer 9

Economic Development and Planning Official 2

Public Works Director 4

School Superintendent 2

Law Enforcement Administrator 5

Director of Emergency Medical Services 1

Zoning Enforcement Officer 1

State Government (n = 22)

Revenue and Regulation 1

Health & Human Services 6

Corrections 1

Finance and Management 1

Education 6

Transportation 2

Parks and Recreation 2

Environment and Natural Resources 1

Public Safety 2

the values were adapted from Kernaghan (2003), and an additional five values were adapted from the American Society for Public Administration’s Code of Ethics. Following van der Wal and Huberts (2008), the values were given action-oriented definitions that described “important qualities and standards that have a certain weight in the choice of action” (p. 267). Table 2 presents the entire list of 30 administrative values used for the survey, along with the definitions provided to the participants.

Through means of a 4-point Likert scale, the participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they rated each value as either unimportant (1), sometimes important (2), usually important (3), or always important (4) in their work as an administrator. Consistent with van der Wal’s (2008, pp. 199–200) approach, a final item on the survey instrument asked participants to list the top five values that they found important in their work as an administrator.

A structured interview guide was also developed and provided to the participants in advance to give them an opportunity to reflect on the survey and interview questions. For background information, participants were asked to first describe their organization, the services provided by the organization, and the



Table 2.Set of Administrative Values

AccountabilityTo act willingly in justifying and explaining one’s actions to relevant stakeholders

Benevolence* To act in a manner that promotes good and avoids harm for citizens Collegiality To act loyally and show solidarity toward one’s colleaguesCourage* To confront fear and act rightly in the face of personal risk

Dedication To act with diligence, enthusiasm, and perseverance Effectiveness To act in a manner that best achieves the desired results

EfficiencyTo act in a manner that achieves the desired results using minimal resources

Expertise To act with competence, skill, and knowledgeHonesty To act in a truthful manner and to comply with promises

Humaneness*To act in a manner that exhibits respect, compassion, and dignity toward others

Impartiality To act without prejudice or bias toward particular individuals or groups

Inclusiveness† To act in a manner that includes citizens, customers, and other relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process

Incorruptibility To act without prejudice or bias in favor of one’s own private interests

InnovativenessTo act with initiative and creativity in introducing new policies or products

Integrity* To act in accordance with relevant moral values and norms Lawfulness To act in accordance with existing laws and rulesObedience To act in compliance with the instructions of superiors

Organizational Interest† To act in a manner that promotes the organization’s interest

Participative† To act in a manner that promotes active citizen participation in admin-istrative decision making

Pluralism† To act in a manner that seeks to accommodate the interests of a diverse citizenry

Profitability To act in a manner that achieves financial gains for the organizationPublic Interest† To act in a manner that promotes the public interest

Reliability To act in a manner that is consistent, predictable, and trustworthy Representative* To act in a manner that is consistent with the values of citizens

ResponsivenessTo act in a manner that is in accordance with the preferences of citi-zens, customers, and other relevant stakeholders

Self-InterestTo act in a manner that promotes the well-being and professional development of the individual

Serviceability To act in a manner that is helpful and provides quality service to citi-zens, customers, and other relevant stakeholders

Social Justice To act in a manner that promotes a fair and just society

SustainabilityTo act in a manner that seeks to protect and sustain nature and the environment

TransparencyTo act in an manner that is open and visible to citizens, customers, and other relevant stakeholders

Source. Set of Administrative Values adapted from van der Wal & Huberts (2008).



population for whom the services are provided, as well as their personal role and responsibilities within the organization. The interview guide next addressed the participant’s perception of which values were most salient by asking them about their top five selected values, and why they perceived those to be most important in their work. Participants were also asked about the extent to which they saw these values coming into conflict with each other, and how they went about reconciling those conflicts. Finally, they were asked if the survey was missing other values important to consider.

ProcedureParticipants were interviewed in their workplace. The interviews were recorded

using a digital voice recorder, transcribed verbatim, and then loaded into Nvivo8, a qualitative data analysis software program. NVivo8 software, like similar qualitative data analysis software, facilitates the researcher’s ability to organize and categorize the data contained in the interview transcripts. The concepts themselves, however, emerge from a careful reading and interpretation of the data contained in the interview transcripts. In effect, qualitative data analysis software simply allows the researcher to identify passages of text from the interview transcripts that relate to a particular concept (e.g., “managing conflict” or “responding to citizens”) and then place them into “baskets” that contain similar passages of text relating to these concepts. The process of sorting data into these conceptual baskets is referred to as open coding. Following the grounded theory methods described by Corbin and Strauss (2008), an initial open-coding procedure was used to identify the range of analytical concepts that could be drawn from the data. This procedure yielded 68 identifiable concepts that were subsequently reanalyzed using axial coding procedures. The process of axial coding provides a theoretical integration of the concepts derived from the data and identifies the central concepts providing the greatest explanatory relevance. In other words, the axial coding procedure involves taking a step back and looking at how the various concepts developed in open coding fit together. We found through this process that, in describing the role that values play in their work, the participants continually returned to four principal themes: (a) personal credibility; (b) professional competence; (c) respect for democratic principles; and (d) positive relationships with citizens and colleagues. We concluded that these four themes also corresponded well to the four categories of public service values identified by Kernaghan (2003) and NASPAA (2009). Therefore, we adopted those categories as a useful heuristic device. Furthermore, we found that these four themes related to a central theoretical concept expressed by the participants that we termed maintaining legitimacy. We discuss this concept at length in a later section.

SURVEY RESULTS

As noted earlier, one purpose of this study was to provide a ranking of the values that public administrators find most important in their work. Figure 1 presents the mean ratings assigned by participants, and Table 3 presents a summary score for each value. As can be seen, ethical values such as honesty and integrity



were ranked highest; their mean scores were 3.88 and 3.86 respectively. These values were followed closely by lawfulness and benevolence (each with mean ratings of 3.82), incorruptibility (3.78), and accountability (3.73). Interestingly, the value of efficiency—normally regarded as a core public administration value—ranked relatively low compared to ethical values with a mean score of 3.13. Not surprisingly, self-interest (2.59) and profitability (2.25) were ranked lowest.

As Figure 1 indicates, the participants tended to rate most of the adminis-trative values included in the survey as important in their work. All but four of the values (participative, sustainability, self-interest, and profitability) received mean ratings greater than 3, indicating that they were “usually important.”

Figure 1.Ranking of Value Importance


Honesty 3.88 (0.32) Integrity 3.86 (0.34) Lawfulness 3.82 (0.38) Benevolence 3.82 (0.38) Incorruptibility 3.78 (0.45) Accountability 3.73 (0.44) Reliability 3.69 (0.57) Dedication 3.69 (0.5) Serviceability 3.67 (0.51) Humaneness 3.61 (0.52) Effectiveness 3.61 (0.56) Expertise 3.59 (0.56) Impartiality 3.51 (0.57) Org. Interest 3.5 (0.61) Public-Interest 3.34 (0.65) Social-Justice 3.32 (0.75) Courage 3.32 (0.73) Transparency 3.3 (0.72) Obedience 3.3 (0.64) Inclusiveness 3.21 (0.72) Innovativeness 3.17 (0.75) Representative 3.13 (0.59) Efficiency 3.13 (0.71) Responsiveness 3.11 (0.67) Collegiality 3.11 (0.58) Pluralism 3.01 (0.67) Participative 2.78 (0.72) Sustainability 2.76 (0.83) Self-Interest 2.59 (0.91) Profitability 2.25 (0.92)


Table 3. Ranking of Value Importance

ValueUnimport-

ant(1)

Sometimes Important

(2)

UsuallyImportant

(3)

AlwaysImportant

(4)

Summary Score

Honesty 0 0 6 46 202

Integrity* 0 0 7 45 201

Benevolence* 0 0 9 43 199

Lawfulness 0 0 9 43 199

Incorruptibility 0 1 9 42 197

Accountability 0 0 14 38 194

Dedication 0 1 14 37 192

Reliability 0 3 10 39 192

Serviceability 0 1 15 36 191

Effectiveness 0 2 16 34 188

Humaneness* 0 1 18 33 188

Expertise 0 2 17 33 187

Impartiality 0 2 21 29 183

Org. Interest† 1 0 23 28 182

Public Interest† 1 2 27 22 174

Courage* 0 8 19 25 173

Social Justice 1 6 20 25 173

Obedience 0 5 26 21 172

Transparency 0 8 20 24 172

Inclusiveness† 0 9 24 19 166

Innovativeness 0 11 21 20 165

Efficiency 0 10 25 17 163

Representative* 1 3 36 12 163

Collegiality 0 6 34 12 162

Responsiveness 1 6 31 14 162

Pluralism† 1 8 32 11 157

Participative† 1 17 26 8 145

Sustainability 3 16 23 10 144

Self-Interest 4 24 13 11 135

Profitability 11 23 12 6 117

Source. Set of Administrative Values adapted from van der Wal & Huberts (2008). * See Table One in Kernaghan (2003). † See ASPA Code of Ethics, Principles I, II, & IV.



As noted earlier, participants were also asked to identify the five values that were most important in their work, which provided some additional insight into which values were considered most salient. Figure 2 presents the frequency with which particular values were rated by participants as a top 5 administrative value. Though honesty (n = 37) and integrity (n = 26) remain at the top of the ranking, values such as lawfulness (n = 12) and benevolence (n = 7) fall in the ranking. There are a number of other differences between the rankings presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2. For example, two participants included profitability in their list of top 5 values, even though it received the lowest mean rating of importance in Figure 1. This highlights the importance of the context in which public service values are exercised, and the significance of the organizational role performed (see also Brudney, Hebert, & Wright, 2000; Seldon, Brewer, & Brudney, 1999). As a number of administrators reported, there are indeed some circumstances in which profitability may be an important value in their work. In other words, context matters. What is clear from both Figure 1 and Figure 2, however, is that the participants in this study found ethical values to be of most importance to them in their work as public administrators, but that other values such as professional, democratic, and human values also have great significance. In the section that follows, we present a model of public service values that seeks to illustrate why this is the case.

MODEL OF PUBLIC SERVICE VALUES

As members of society, public administrators internalize a broad range of values through sources such as personal experience, education, socialization, professional training, and religious tradition (Perry, 1997; Rokeach, 1973). The participants in this study reported that some of these values become more salient to them as public administrators because of the administrative context in which they operate. The administrative context is partly characterized by the operational environment in which administrators carry out their day-to-day work. This operational environment consists of interpersonal and interorganizational conflict, disagreement over the goals that administrators should pursue, and questions about their legitimacy as actors in the system of governance. Drawing on the work of Paul Appleby, Stephen Bailey (1964) has argued that such an environment requires administrators to possess a combination of those mental attitudes and moral qualities needed to effectively serve the public. According to Bailey, these attitudes and qualities include recognition of the moral ambiguity, contextual forces, and paradoxes associated with public service as well as the exercise of optimism, courage, and a sense of fairness that is tempered by charity (pp. 235–236).

Another important aspect of the administrative context is organizational culture. Organizational culture refers to the set of values and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, along with the observable symbols and representations associated with those values and beliefs (Hatch, 1997). As Edgar Schein (1992) has pointed out, a strong organizational culture has the effect of socializing members to respond to problems in a fashion that is consistent with



core norms and principles. Finally, and of particular interest here, professional education plays an important role in shaping the administrative context by instilling a set of professional values that transcend the operational environment and organizational culture in which public administrators work. This role was particularly evident, for example, among law enforcement administrators. Law enforcement education emphasizes values such as personal honesty, respect for authority, courage, loyalty, and lawfulness (Swanson, Territo, & Taylor, 1988). The law enforcement administrators participating in this research routinely cited these values as important in their work, and they credited their professional training as a prime source of the values.

Figure 2.Frequency of Value Ranked as Top 5 Administrative Values


Honesty 37 Integrity 26 Accountability 23 Dedication 20 Reliability 17 Expertise 17 Lawfulness 12 Impartiality 12 Effectiveness 12 Serviceability 9 Incorruptibility 8 Humaneness 7 Efficiency 7 Courage 7 Benevolence 7 Transparency 5 Org. Interest 5 Inclusiveness 5 Public-Interest 4 Participative 4 Innovativeness 4 Sustainability 2 Responsiveness 2 Profitability 2 Collegiality 2 Social-Justice 1 Representative 1 Pluralism 1 Obedience 1 Self-Interest 0


Figure 3.Model of Public Service Values

Acc

ount

abili

ty,

Ben

evol

ence

, C

olle

gial

ity,

Cou

rage

D

edic

atio

n Ef

fect

iven

ess

Effic

ienc

y Ex

pert

ise

Hon

esty

H

uman

enes

s Im

part

ialit

y In

clus

iven

ess

Inco

rrup

tibili

ty

Inno

vativ

enes

s In

tegr

ity

Law

fuln

ess

Obe

dien

ce

Org

aniz

atio

nal I

nteg

rity

La

wfu

lnes

s O

bedi

ence

Org

aniz

atio

nal I

nter

est

Part

icip

ativ

e,Pl

ural

ismPr

ofita

bilit

y

Publ

ic R

epre

sent

atio

n

Res

pons

iven

ess

Self-

Inte

rest

Se

rvic

eabi

lity

So

cial

Just

ice

Su

stai

nabi

lity

Tran

spar

ency

En

viro

nmen

t

En

viro

nmen

t

C

redi

bilit

y

C

ompe

tenc

e D

emoc

ratic

Pr

inci

ples

Rel

atio

nshi

ps

with

Citi

zens

an

d C

olle

ague

s

Ran

ge o

f Val

ues

Publ

ic

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Con

text

Publ

ic S

ervi

ce

Valu

esM

aint

aini

ng

Legi

tim

acy

Ethi

cal

Valu

es

Prof

essi

onal

Va

lues

Dem

ocra

tic

Valu

es

Hum

an

Valu

es

Feed

back

Loo

pVa

lue R

einfo

rcem

ent



Figure 3.Model of Public Service Values

To sum up, in response to contextual factors, certain values, drawn from the overall range of values, manifest themselves as a combination of attitudes, skills, and behaviors that together constitute what participants regard as public service values. By acting on these values, public administrators are able to maintain legitimacy by establishing their own personal credibility, exhibiting professional competence, demonstrating respect for democratic principles, and maintaining positive relationships with citizens and colleagues Administrators’ use of the values is positively reinforced when use of the values assists the administrators in maintaining legitimacy. The Model of Public Service Values presented in Figure 3, and described next, depicts this relationship.

Ethical ValuesAs noted earlier, the public administrators interviewed for this study were

acutely aware of the need to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders as well as of the role that ethical values such as honesty, integrity, and accountability played in that regard. One city administrator stated the problem in these terms:

I do not think people trust or respect government. They do not feel that they have that level of honesty and good communications with them….I have regulations and I do have the responsibility of enforcing those. I think the best way to do that is to be honest about what it is we are implementing or what we are doing.

In response to this mistrust, participants clearly found that ethical values such as honesty, accountability, and integrity were essential for maintaining their personal credibility as a public administrator. As a school superintendent put it,

I think they’ve got to be just at the foundation of everything you do. For example, honesty and integrity—if you don’t have that, basically you have no credibility as a leader.… You have to have that honesty and integrity one hundred percent of the time in order to build trust, because you have to have trust in order to be a leader.

In contrast to some other public service values, ethical values were perceived to be generally important in all areas of life, not just in an administrative context. In effect, participants viewed ethical values as essential traits of a person with good character. As one administrator put it, “Those [ethical values] are important to me personally in who I am and what I stand for, and I think that carries through in my day-to-day life. I am not a different person at home than I



am at work.” The focus of this study, however, was on the role that these values play in the administrative context, and participants clearly expressed the view that ethical values were instrumentally significant in their ability to be effective in their work. One public administrator described the relationship between ethical values and effectiveness by saying,

I’ve just got to be honest. People don’t do things unless they trust that you’re telling them the straight story. And you need people to do things, I mean you need other people to do things, you can’t do everything. You need to persuade other people to do things and I think trust is the most important advantage that one can bring to asking someone to do something.

Professional ValuesImportantly, participants noted that ethical values were not sufficient in

themselves to maintain legitimacy as a public administrator. Rather, they report that these values must be exercised in combination with professional values such as expertise, dedication, and reliability. A lack of expertise, for example, gives the appearance of incompetence and compromises the administrator’s ability to give good reasons for his or her actions and decisions. As one city administrator explained in discussing the need to have expertise,

I have to be able to explain [my actions], and there’s the expertise. You need to be an expert in what you do, that’s what I really need to do. I need to be able to explain using my expertise and be able to explain to people why I choose what I choose and back that up.… I always have examples for people so they understand what I am doing.

By establishing their personal credibility (by acting on ethical values) and their professional competence (by acting on professional values), administrators are able to develop a reputation as a legitimate authority, which in turn enables them to more effectively perform their work.

Democratic ValuesIn addition to the ethical and professional values already discussed,

administrators also described democratic values as important in the public administrative context. Along those lines, administrators described values such as inclusiveness and transparency as primary tools used to encourage communities to (a) trust their department or local government and (b) elicit stakeholder buy-in for policies and projects. For example, a police chief reflected, “If you do not include your stakeholders from the get-go, then you are not going to have success.” In particular, those administrators who had regular contact with the



public emphasized the importance of allowing stakeholders to be heard in the decision-making process. While these participants strongly acknowledged the intrinsic worth of democratic values such as inclusiveness and transparency, they also recognized their instrumental worth. In this vein, a state parks administrator acknowledged the benefits of citizen participation, even though his managers were “blown away” by citizen comments that the park should have signs to help drivers navigate the park as well as security lights at night. He explained,

Our managers are outdoor type of people and they hate signs…[but] we are here to provide service. You may not like their comment about security lights but I think it’s a valid point to provide a safe place for people.

As we saw with ethical and professional values, administrators described the public service values that were most salient in their work as interrelated and mutually supportive. Similarly, the public administrators that we spoke with saw a clear connection between democratic values such as transparency and ethical values such as integrity. One city administrator described the connection in this way:

I think integrity is very important in city government. Integrity also to me is part of being transparent in government. I think that is very important. The public needs to know what you are doing and be able to get at information. Obviously, there are some things that are not open to the public, but for the most part I think open government is a real important thing and you need to have the integrity to do that.

Similarly, a state administrator reflected on the connection between transparency and effectiveness:

I have worked for some people who I thought were very transparent.… it’s just remarkable what you can achieve when you’re willing to explain to people why you’re doing it and how you’re doing it so they can see both sides of it. It’s just something that I really value.... I just think that people buy into something when they feel like they have an opportunity to see why you’re doing something. That’s just something that’s really important to me.

Human ValuesDemocratic values such as transparency and inclusiveness are believed to

promote the common interest and are easily justified within the context of our political tradition. What may be less clear, however, is the role that human values—values like benevolence and humaneness—might play in the public administrative context. Therefore, it is interesting to note that the participants in



this study described human values as critically important in their work as public administrators, especially with respect to establishing positive relationships with citizens and colleagues. Importantly, the participants reported that these values manifest themselves principally through the exercise of interpersonal skills such as conflict mediation and good listening (on listening, see also Stivers, 1994). For example, a municipal public works director, in talking about humaneness, stated:

A lot of times I think what people appreciate most about a municipal government is to just to take the time to listen to them. A lot of times they want nothing more than to give you their opinion.… A lot of times it’s just patience, take the time and let them explain their issues and knowing that I’m maybe not going to resolve every one of them but it is important that they think that you sincerely listened to them. I think that it goes a long way to helping the image of our department.

Similarly, a police chief described the importance of humaneness in establishing positive relationships with citizens in this way:

Humaneness—everyone is a person. You can’t be a bully in police work. You can’t use excessive force. We found that out through the years that the more humane you are to people, the better you treat people, the better they are to us.

In addition to humaneness, the participants described benevolence as an important value in their work (on benevolence, see also Frederickson & Hart, 1985). Notably, several participants commented on the importance of benevolence as a defining characteristic of public service as well as on the role human values generally play in establishing positive relationships with citizens and colleagues. For example, a state administrator discussing the differences between working in the public sector and working in the private sector stated:

I have been with the state almost five years, but it has taken me a while to really figure out, what is our role? I guess that’s where benevolence comes in. I still kind of have a private sector mind set. I just never really thought about, you know…if you have a child with a disability, what happens to them? You know, where do they go? Where do you get services? So, I think you become very aware of that when you work for state government, and certainly in my department, and just knowing that there are a lot of individuals in our communities that need assistance. We just need to work together to better our society and provide better services so as a whole we can be better communities and better humans.



In similar terms, a public works director discussed the importance of benevolence in serving the public by putting it this way:

I think when I looked at this [benevolence], “To promote good and avoid harm for our citizens,” as I mentioned before, we are services. I am the one who is going to pick up your garbage. I am the one who is going to ensure that your water is safe to drink. I am the one who is going to build the new park....We are always trying to make our community better and provide nicer and more accommodations for our citizens. At the same time, I feel very responsible for their safety. A lot of my responsibilities involve responding to emergencies; whether it’s a flood or a blizzard. That is a big responsibility that we get placed upon us—to provide that safety issue for them. So I felt [benevolence] was important.

To sum up, participants generally found the entire range of values included in the survey to be good and helpful characteristics of public service, but the administrative context in which they are exercised has an influence on the level of importance they have in particular situations. This administrative context consists of an operational environment, an organizational culture, and a background of professional education. It is often characterized by conflict, disagreement over the goals they should pursue, and questions about their legitimacy. Hence, the participants of this study emphasized the importance of public service values as a way of maintaining legitimacy. In that vein, we offer the following set of theoretical propositions:

!" Theoretical Proposition One. Ethical values such as honesty and integrity are instrumental in allowing administrators to establish personal credibility.

!" Theoretical Proposition Two. Professional values such as expertise and effectiveness are instrumental in allowing administrators to establish professional competence.

!" Theoretical Proposition Three. Democratic values such as inclusiveness and transparency are instrumental in allowing administrators to establish a commitment to democratic principles.

!" Theoretical Proposition Four. Human values such as humaneness and benevolence are instrumental in allowing administrators to establish positive relationships with citizens and colleagues.

!" Theoretical Proposition Five. In the public administrative context, acting on public service values (i.e., ethical values, professional values, democratic values, and human values) is instrumental in allowing public administrators to maintain legitimacy by establishing personal credibility, professional competence, commitment to democratic principles, and positive relationships with citizens and colleagues.



DISCUSSION

This article has presented the findings of a mixed methods study conducted in the Midwest region of the United States that explored the role played by values in the work of public administrators. The findings reported here lend empirical support to NASPAA’s recent decision to make public service values a core element of how the field of public administration is distinguished. If effectively incorporated into the public administration curriculum, public service values serve as a powerful tool for educating public administrators who will be concerned with “pursuing the public interest with accountability and transparency; serving professionally with competence, efficiency, and objectivity; acting ethically so as to uphold the public trust; and demonstrating respect, equity, and fairness in dealings with citizens and fellow public servants” (NASPAA, 2009, p. 2). Because public service values are exhibited broadly in the behaviors, attitudes, and skills of public administrators, it follows that they should also be incorporated broadly into the public administration curriculum. To that end, the best approach is one that draws linkages between public service values on the one hand and the behaviors, attitudes, and skills that public administration programs seek to impart on the other.

One example of how public administration programs may draw such a linkage is within the context of a unit, possibly situated within a course in administrative law, exploring what has been called the “bureaucracy in a democracy” problem (Hall, 2005). Numerous administrative law cases may be framed from the perspective of how the courts have required public administrators to balance bureaucratic values such as efficiency and effectiveness against democratic values like due process, transparency and accountability (e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 1970; Department of Air Force v. Rose, 1976). Additionally, legislation such as the Administrative Procedures Act (1946) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (1946) may be considered from the standpoint of how Congress has sought to impose democratic values onto the work of public administrators.

As noted earlier, administrators have identified honesty as the most important value in their work. This raises the question of whether it is ever justified to be dishonest as a public administrator; and, if so, under what circumstances? Along these lines, a unit within an administrative ethics course may explore the contrasts between deontological and utilitarian approaches to the question of honesty. Whereas a deontological perspective, such as that espoused by Immanuel Kant (1785/1998), would argue for the duty to tell the truth in all instances, a utilitarian perspective, such as that espoused by Jeremy Bentham (1789/1988), would emphasize the importance of taking the consequences of truth telling into account. Students could be given a set of cases to consider in which telling the truth may result in undesirable consequences; then they could be asked to reason their way through, using both deontological and utilitarian approaches, to resolve the situation. Would truth telling in a particular case result in personal embarrassment or damage the reputation of their agency? What about circumstances in which truth telling may result in



the loss of innocent life? In that regard, a historical case such as the Danish civil service’s effort to protect its Jewish citizens from the Nazis during World War II may be illustrative. The point would be to provide students with opportunities for reflecting on the role that honesty plays in public service

Of course, the integration of public service values into the public administration curriculum need not be confined to obvious choices such as courses in administrative law or administrative ethics. Courses such as public budgeting and personnel management are among the key venues in which public administration programs emphasize the importance of professional values such as efficiency and expertise. However, a course in public budgeting may also integrate a democratic value like transparency by establishing a learning objective in which students acquire the skills to present budgets that are readily accessible and easily interpreted by citizens and elected officials. Apart from these technical skills, the course may also contain a unit exploring the democratic values that underlie the public budgeting process. A learning objective such as this can be helpful in developing a public service attitude on the part of students about the role of such values in our political system.

Likewise, a unit within a public personnel management course may explore the historical development of the U.S. Civil Service system by exploring the tensions that exist between the professional values of a merit-based system and the Jacksonian democratic values reflected in the system of patronage that it largely replaced. In a more contemporary vein, students may also be asked to consider contrasts between the values associated with the system of political appointees in the executive branch, and the values associated with the system of career civil servants. Additionally, courses in public personnel management, along with courses in organizational management and leadership, are particularly good settings for integrating human values into the public administration curriculum. For example, learning objectives that focus on the skills associated with conflict resolution and interpersonal communication allow students to acquire the skills they need to perform effectively in the high-conflict environment that often characterizes the work of public administrators.

The key here is for degree programs in public affairs and administration to establish a set of direct measures for assessing the extent to which their students acquire the attitudes, behaviors, and skills required for them to incorporate public service values into their professional activities (NASPAA, 2009). This raises the question of where we may look for evidence that our students have internalized these values. In addition to traditional educational assessment tools, such as written assignments and case study exercises, internship and practicum experiences provide an excellent opportunity for determining whether our students exhibit these core values in practice. In short, because we cannot directly observe the values themselves, we must look instead for their outward manifestations—that is, the attitudes, behaviors, and skills associated with these values. All of this starts, of course, with ensuring that these same values are embedded in the internal governance of the program. As an example, program faculty should actively seek



to include relevant stakeholders in the process of discerning and articulating the core values of the program, including the faculty teaching in the program as well as the students and representatives from the organizations where they work. In other words, programs must not only “talk the talk” but also “walk the walk” when it comes to public service values. By ensuring that they themselves act on ethical, professional, democratic, and human values in serving the public interest, degree programs in public affairs and administration can more effectively promote public service values as the heart of the profession.

REFERENCESAdministrative Procedures Act. (1946). PL 79–404. 60 Stat. 237. 5 U.S.C. 551.

Bailey, S. (1964). Ethics and the public service. Public Administration Review, 24(4), 234–243.

Bentham, J. (1789/1988). The principles of morals and legislation. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Brudney, J., Hebert, F., & Wright, D. (2000). From organizational values to organizational roles: Examining representative bureaucracy in state administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3), 491–512.

Christensen, R., Goerdel, H., & Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2011). Management, law, and the pursuit of the public good in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), 125–140.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denhardt, R., & Denhardt, J. (2006). Public administration: An action orientation (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976).

Fairholm, M., & Fairholm, G. (2009). Understanding leadership perspectives: Theoretical and practical approaches. New York: Springer.

Federal Tort Claims Act. (1946). PL 100–694. 60 Stat. 842. 28 U.S.C. 2671.

Frederickson, H. G., & Hart, D. (1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45(5), 547–553.

Getha-Taylor, H. (2009). Managing the “new normalcy” with values-based leadership: Lessons from Admiral James Loy. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 200–206.

Goldberg v. Kelley, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).

Hall, D. (2005). Administrative law: Bureaucracy in a democracy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hartmus, D. (2008). Teaching constitutional law to public administrators. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(3), 353–360.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.



Henry, N., Goodsell, C., Lynn Jr., L., Stivers, C., & Wamsley, G. (2009). Understanding excellence in public administration: The report of the Task Force on Educating for Excellence in the Master of Public Administration Degree of the American Society for Public Administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(2), 117–133.

Jorgensen, T. (1999). The public sector in an in-between time: Searching for new public values. Public Administration, 77(3), 565–584.

Kant, I. (1785/1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. M. Gregor (Trans.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kernaghan, K. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 711–719.

Mandell, M. (2009). Public values as a core element of NASPAA. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 261–267.

Menzel, D. (2003). Public administration as a profession. Public Integrity, 5(3), 239–249.

Molina, A. D. (2009). Values in public administration: The role of organizational culture. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 12(2), 266–279.

National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). (2009, October 16). Accreditation Standards for Master’s Degree Programs. Retrieved from http://www.naspaa.org/accreditation/doc/NS2009FinalVote10.16.2009.pdf

Paarlberg, L., & Perry, J. (2007). Values management: Aligning employee values and organizational goals. American Review of Public Administration, 37(4), 387–408.

Perry, J. (1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(2), 181–198.

Peters, R., & Filipova, A. (2009). Optimizing cognitive dissonance literacy in ethics education. Public Integrity, 11(3), 201–219.

Posner, B., & Schmidt, W. (1994). An updated look at the values of federal government executives. Public Administration Review, 54(1), 20–25.

Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change within value attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues, XXIV(1), 13–33.

———. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.

Rouillard, C., & Giroux, D. (2005). Public administration and the managerialist fervour for values and ethics: Of collective confusion in control societies. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 27(2), 330–357.

Rutgers, M. (2008). Sorting out public values? On the contingency of value classifications in public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 30(1), 92–113.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shareef, R. (2008). Teaching public sector ethics to graduate students: The public values/public failure decision-making model. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(3), 285–295.

Selden, S., Brewer, G., & Brudney, J. (1999). Reconciling competing values in public administration: Understanding the administrative role concept. Administration & Society, 31(2), 171–204.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.



Spicer, M. (2001). Value pluralism and its implications for American public administration. Administrative Theory and Practice, 23(4), 507–528.

Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public adminsitration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364–369.

Stout, M. (2009). Enhancing professional socialization through the metaphor of tradition. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 289–316.

Swanson, C., Territo, L., & Taylor, R. (1988). Police administration: Structure, processes, and behavior. New York: Macmillan.

van der Wal, Z. (2008). Value solidity: Differences, similarities, and conflicts between the organizational values of government and business. PhD dissertation, VU University, Amsterdam.

van der Wal, Z., & Huberts, L. (2008). Value solidity in government and business: Results of an empirical study on public and private sector values. American Review of Public Administration, 38(3), 264–285.

Van Wart, M. (1998). Changing public sector values. New York: Garland Publishing.

Wagenaar, H. (1999). Value pluralism in public administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 21, 443–449.

Waldo, D. (1984). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of public administration (2nd ed.). New York: Holmes & Meier.

Anthony DeForest Molina is director of Graduate Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of South Dakota. His teaching and research interests include public administration ethics, organization theory, administrative law, and the role of values in administrative decision making.

Cassandra McKeown is an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Studies Department at the University of South Dakota. Her teaching and research interests include ethics in criminal justice, juvenile justice issues, constitutional law, and vicarious trauma in members of the courtroom workgroup.


The H ear t of the P rofession: U nderstanding P ublic … Jour nal of P ublic Affairs E ducation...

Documents

Transcript of The H ear t of the P rofession: U nderstanding P ublic … Jour nal of P ublic Affairs E ducation...