This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Selden, S. C. Articles by Brudney, J. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Reconciling Competing Values in Public Administration

Understanding the Administrative Role Concept

Syracuse University

Gene A. Brewer

University of Georgia

Jeffrey L. Brudney

University of Georgia

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Dubnick and J. B. Justice Accountability and the Evil of Administrative Ethics Administration Society, May 1, 2006; 38(2): 236 - 267. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Schneider and F. Damanpour Public Choice Economics and Public Pension Plan Funding: An Empirical Test Administration Society, March 1, 2002; 34(1): 57 - 86. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. A. Brewer and R. A. Maranto Comparing the Roles of Political Appointees and Career Executives in the U.S. Federal Executive Branch The American Review of Public Administration, March 1, 2000; 30(1): 69 - 86. [Abstract] [PDF]