Administration & Society

This article reports research on the administrative role concept. The authors use the inductive research technique Q-methodology to probe the belief systems of 69 public administrators about their administrative roles and responsibilities. Results show that these administrators perceive five distinct roles. The authors labeled these roles stewards of the public interest, adapted realists, businesslike utilitarians, resigned custodians, and practical idealists. There is slight evidence of a neutral competence role as suggested by the Pendleton Act of 1883, Woodrow Wilson, and others (resigned custodian) but more support of a proactive administrative role (steward of the public interest) that overlaps with the role described by recent scholars such as the Blacksburg group. Another important finding is that three of the role conceptions appear to reject being responsive to the desires of elected officials. The five roles are examined in more detail, and the implications for future research are discussed.

As the end of this millennium approaches, American public administration has begun a reexamination of its history. This article examines American public administration’s understanding and use of history and suggests improvements in public administration theory that might derive from a more conscientious treatment of history. It begins by framing an understanding of history that does not retreat to the ancient faith in immutable truth but eschews the typical modern dependence on a belief in progress. Many public administration textbooks present the history of American public administration as if it did not really begin until the 1880s, treating the Progressive Era as the foundation for the eternal verities of public administration. A more inclusive view could be more intelligently critical of Progressive Era innovations. It could also provide a more complete understanding of who public administrators are and how they can become what they want to be.

Decentralized, market-based service systems provide services recipients with opportunities to choose services and service providers. Yet, for some service recipients, finding and arranging for services is so difficult that they do not receive the services they need. Collaboration between service providers and service recipients may reduce the costs and confusion of decentralized service delivery. This study explores the effects of interagency collaboration and collaboration between agencies and families on families’ experiences finding and arranging service to help them and their children with disabilities. It uses data collected from 317 randomly sampled families participating in the State of Michigan’s Early On program (Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Higher levels of interagency collaboration were associated with increases in the quantity and quality of services provided. Different forms of collaboration between agencies and families were associated with more mixed service delivery impacts. These findings support continued experimentation with collaborative service delivery by policy makers.

The author argues for an application of bilateral transformational leadership approach composed of two essential ingredients: self-discovery process and reflection. This approach permits influences and definitions of organizational goals and ethical conduct to be jointly shaped by both leaders and followers. Bilateral transformational leadership directs leader and follower to jointly construct a common values framework that serves as a basis for establishing a collective vision of change through meaningful and responsible actions. A shared moral reasoning process exercised by leader and followers reinforces the bilateral transformational process and consequently elevates and improves the ethical conduct of members in the public service organization.

This article is a rejoinder to the critique by Robert Golembiewski of the authors’ article “Transforming the Mind-Set of the Organization: A Clinical Perspective,” in which the processes of individual and organizational change and the resemblance between them were highlighted. Golembiewski’s major points of criticism suggested limitations to the authors’ approach to organizational transformation, possible negative ethical implications, and low estimates of success rates. He referred to quality of working life (QWL) and organizational development (OD) studies as more appropriate approaches. The authors respond by emphasizing the difference between small-scale change as represented by QWL and OD and major organizational transformation efforts they have engaged in, pointing out the dimension added by the clinical orientation to conventional approaches to organizational change as one that may be more appropriate for the shift in organizational paradigms. The authors clarify the definition of healthy organizations and introduce the concept of the “authentizotic” organization.