The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

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.

Full text

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

Journal of Public Affairs Education 377
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 Values
A 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

378 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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
Participants
The 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 Materials
The 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
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 379
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
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

380 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Table 2.
Set of Administrative Values
Accountability To 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 colleagues
Courage* 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
Efficiency To act in a manner that achieves the desired results using minimal
resources
Expertise To act with competence, skill, and knowledge
Honesty 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
Innovativeness To 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 rules
Obedience 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 organization
Public 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
Responsiveness To act in a manner that is in accordance with the preferences of citi-
zens, customers, and other relevant stakeholders
Self-Interest To 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
Sustainability To act in a manner that seeks to protect and sustain nature and the
environment
Transparency To 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).
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 381
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.
Procedure
Participants 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
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

382 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown
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)

Journal of Public Affairs Education 383
Table 3.
Ranking of Value Importance
Value
Unimport-
ant
(1)
Sometimes
Important
(2)
Usually
Important
(3)
Always
Important
(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.
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

384 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 385
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
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service 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

386 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Figure 3.
Model of Public Service Values
Accountability,
Benevolence,
Collegiality,
Courage
Dedication
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Expertise
Honesty
Humaneness
Impartiality
Inclusiveness
Incorruptibility
Innovativeness
Integrity
Lawfulness
Obedience
Organizational Integrity
Lawfulness
Obedience
Organizational Interest
Participative,
Pluralism
Profitability
Public Representation
Responsiveness
Self-Interest
Serviceability
Social Justice
Sustainability
Transparency
UÊ "«iÀ>Ì>
Environment
UÊ "À}>â>Ì>
Environment
UÊ *iÀÃ>
Credibility
UÊ *ÀviÃÃ>
Competence
UÊ ,iëiVÌÊvÀ
Democratic
Principles
UÊ *ÃÌÛi
Relationships
with Citizens
and Colleagues
Range of Values
Public
Administrative
Context
Public Service
Values Maintaining
Legitimacy
Ethical
Values
Professional
Values
Democratic
Values
Human
Values
Feedback Loop
Value Reinforcement
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 387
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 Values
As 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
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

388 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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 Values
Importantly, 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 Values
In 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
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 389
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 peopl
e.
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 Values
Democratic 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
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

390 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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.
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 391
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.
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

392 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 393
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
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

394 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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.
REFERENCES
Administrative 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.
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown

Journal of Public Affairs Education 395
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.
The Heart of the Profession: Understanding Public Service Values

396 Journal of Public Affairs Education
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.
A. Deforest Molina & C. L. McKeown