College Administrators as Public Servants

Th is article deploys Q methodology in an exploration of

American colleges and universities—especially public

Daniel James Palmer is director of

the public service orientation in the context of American

institutions—are tied to “government” proper by

institutional research for the South Dakota

postsecondary leadership. Th irty-seven senior college Board of Regents in Pierre, South Dakota. ﬁ nancial and structural ﬁ bers that shape the norma-

His research focuses on education policy

administrators were asked to rank a series of state- tive context of campus administration. In exchange for and analytic techniques. ments regarding the administrative values, motives, and

ﬁ nancial support, state governments put forward a host E-mail: danp@sdbor.edu attitudes that underlie their own subjective views on

of expectations for the management of public institu-

administrative conduct. Analysis proceeded in two stages: tions. State governing and coordinating boards have (1) factor analysis of the administrative perspectives

become increasingly involved in managing the internal

oﬀ ered by participants and (2) qualitative comparison

aﬀ airs of colleges and universities and often press

of these perspectives to extant scholarly portrayals of the

public institutions to demonstrate strong productivity. 2

public service orientation. Results indicate the existence

Newman, Couturier, and Scurry recount that legisla-

of two dominant perspectives among participants. Factor

tors and other public oﬃ cials “expect higher education

1, Societal Trusteeship, is fundamentally oriented toward to mirror the changes taking place in the economy the needs of external society and expresses a willingness

… and become more ﬂ exible, adaptable, consumer-

to leverage institutional resources to improve the human

friendly, innovative, technologically advanced, per-

condition. Factor 2, Organizational Stewardship,

formance driven, and accountable” (2004, 75). Such

by contrast, is an internally oriented perspective that

attitudes lay much responsibility at the feet of post-

emphasizes institutional performance. Importantly, the

secondary administrators. Consequently, Birnbaum

factors are not dichotomous and suggest considerable

and Eckel oﬀ er that “[college] presidents may ﬁ nd

cognitive complexity in the professional orientations of

themselves becoming like middle managers in public

college executives.

agencies rather than campus leaders” (2005, 347).

ublic administration

Given the many linkages

scholars have long been

Given the many linkages

between government and higher

interested in the profes-

between government and higher

education, might we not suspect

sional orientations of public

that their respective managers

education, might we not suspect share, to some extent, compara-

sector managers. One relevant

concept from the province of

that their respective managers

ble administrative values? It was

public administration is that of

share, to some extent, compara- taken as the central aim of this

the “public service orientation,”

ble administrative values?

project to examine the manage-

that is, the notion of embrac-

rial perspectives of senior college

ing a duty to serve the public

administrators with respect to

interest. Among other things, this viewpoint has been

the public service orientation. At its core, the research

posited to underlie a host of attitudinal, motivational,

was driven by a single organizing question: What are

aﬀ ective, and behavioral diﬀ erences between private

the administrative orientations of senior college adminis-

and public sector employees. Yet formal eﬀ orts to

trators, and how do they compare with existing scholarly

explore the public service orientation have centered

portraits of the public service orientation?

mainly on conventional venues of government and have tended to overlook the realm of the college

As a means for approaching the rather ponderous notion

administrator. 1 Th e absence of such work seems

of “administrative orientation,” the study employed Q

surprising given the gamut of publicly oriented virtues methodology, an intensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative Public Administration Review , ascribed to higher education and, by association, its Vol. 73, Iss. 3, pp. 441–451. © 2013 by method designed to map research participants’ subjec-

managers. The American Society for Public Administration. tive perspectives on a given object of thought (Ramlo

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12037.

College Administrators as Public Servants 441 College Administrators as Public Servants 441

to professional values and motives, “government is diﬀ erent.” Early some stance on one of the many values, needs, attitudes, and reward

authors, such as Barnard (1938), Appleby (1945), and Mosher preferences associated (in existing empirical work) with the posited

(1968), oﬀ ered descriptive accounts of a unique normative perspec- public service orientation. Analysis centered on interpreting the extent

tive held by public sector employees. According to these writers, to which the emergent (factor-analyzed) managerial perspectives

public workers are expected to operate from a deep-rooted sense of comport with customary impressions of the idealized public service

duty to the public interest, underpinned by a range of bureaucratic orientation. Two operant factors emerged, both of which can be seen

and democratic ideals. Th ese observations gave rise to an entire body to share characteristics with the public service orientation.

of writings on the public service orientation, writings that have centered on several substantive areas. First, publicly oriented professionals

Literature Review: The Public Service Orientation

are thought to embrace a unique array of personal and administrative

Overview

values, including accountability, eﬀ ectiveness, empathy, responsive- Beginning with luminary commentaries from Wilson and

ness, and self-sacriﬁ ce (Nalbandian and Edwards 1983; Perry 1996; Willoughby and extending through the Simon–Waldo furor, public

Posner and Schmidt 1996). Second, a number of social perspectives administration scholars have long grappled with the nature of

and needs—such as humanitarianism and the sensed need for job administrative values in public organizations (Molina 2009). In

security—similarly have been posited as illustrative of the public serv- time, public administration practice has come to be associated with

ice orientation (Baldwin 1987; Brewer 2003; Houston 2000). Th ird,

a cohesive professional ethic. Some public administration scholars this perspective has been linked to several behavioral and attitudinal have encapsulated this value set using the notion of the “public

predictors, including high civic participation and comparatively low service orientation.” Th is concept sometimes is referred to alterna-

job satisfaction (Houston 2006; Rainey 1989). Finally, public sector tively as the “public service ethic,” “public service ethos,” or (more

workers consistently have been associated with a preference for intrin- formally) “public service motivation.”

sic rewards over economic incentives (Crewson 1997; Rainey 1982). Th eoretical work on the public service orientation has been marked

Table 1 organizes the preponderant statements of ﬁ nding from the by a diversity of empirical ideas. Early scholars disagreed about the

foregoing literature. Th e framework mostly comprises empirical foundations of the public service orientation and intermittently

studies, although it also contains several review articles and thought proposed that it encompasses all manner of dynamics, including

pieces with high currency in the public administration canon. Th e attitudes, values, motives, needs, drives, and reward preferences.

“Supporting Evidence (Selected)” column notes studies (in paren- Indeed, many researchers seeking to characterize this worldview

theses) whose results may clash with the majority of ﬁ ndings. It have not done so under the explicit banner of “public service orien-

follows that this summary may occasionally oversimplify the current tation” research. Th ese conditions can frustrate eﬀ orts to evaluate a

state of the research literature, in that some areas (such as job satis- cumulative reservoir of ﬁ ndings. Nonetheless, a formal explanatory

faction) have generated cumulative ﬁ ndings that have been some- construct has begun to emerge from this body of related writings.

what indeterminate. Th is framework is tentative but nonetheless

Table 1 Summary of Public Service Orientation Findings by Topical Area

Professional Values a Supporting Evidence (Selected)

Accountability (+)

Appleby (1945); Gabris and Simo (1995)

Effectiveness (+)

Gabris and Simo (1995); Goodsell (1989); Posner and Schmidt (1996)

Effi ciency (–)

Nalbandian and Edwards (1983); Posner and Schmidt (1996)

Empathy (+)

Nalbandian and Edwards (1983); Perry (1996)

Honesty (+)

Goodsell (1989); Schmidt and Posner (1987)

Justice (+)

Goodsell (1989); Perry and Wise (1990)

Public interest (+)

Banfi eld (1975); Perry (1996); Perry and Wise (1990);

Responsiveness (+)

Goodsell (1989)

Individual ability (+)

Guyot (1962); Posner and Schmidt (1996)

Self-sacrifi ce (+)

Kilpatrick, Cummings, and Jennings (1964); Perry (1996)

Needs and Social Perspectives

Supporting Evidence

Humanitarianism (+)

Brewer (2003); Kilpatrick, Cummings, and Jennings (1964)

Job security (+)

Baldwin (1987); Houston (2000); Wittmer (1991; countervailing)

Workplace stability (+)

Jurkiewicz, Massey, and Brown (1998)

Behavioral and Attitudinal

Supporting Evidence

Civic participation (+)

Brewer (2003); Houston (2006)

Job satisfaction (–)

Rainey (1989); Maidani (1991; countervailing); Wright (2001)

Motivation to perform (+)

Guyot (1962); Kline and Peters (1991); Steinhaus and Perry (1996)

Org. commitment (–) Goulet and Frank (2002); Moon (2000); Steinhaus and Perry (1996; countervailing)

Reward Preferences

Supporting Evidence

Intrinsic rewards (+)

Houston (2000); Rainey (1982); Solomon (1986)

Social helpfulness (+)

Cacioppe and Mock (1984); Crewson (1997); Wittmer (1991)

Economic rewards (–)

Crewson (1997); Newstrom, Reif, and Monczka (1976)

a. Positive and negative signs refer to direction of association with the public service orientation. 442 Public Administration Review • May | June 2013

College Administrators as Public Servants 443

scales—that focus on targeted aspects of a broader concept. It was the aim of the current analysis to oﬀ er a fresh approach.

Methodology Q Method: Overview

Q methodology is a research technique designed to focus attention on human subjectivity rather than on empirical eﬀ ects, traits, or characteristics. Procedurally, Q methodology comprises two main operations: the administration of a modiﬁ ed rank-order card sorting task to a selection of participants, followed by a specialized factor- analytic procedure that maps common patterns of subjectivity (Brown 1980).

Instrument Construction

Th e study’s Q-set ﬂ owed conceptually from the above review of literature. Following methodological best practices, the statement sample attempted to provide representative and balanced coverage of the “universe of discourse” on the public service orientation (Brown 1980; Brown, Durning, and Selden 2008; McKeown and Th omas 1988; Watts and Stenner 2012). Actual statement text was drawn from two sources: (1) academic articles oﬀ ering empirical or descriptive accounts of administrative values, attitudes, and motives and (2) interview transcripts generated from a related original

study. 3 Statements were sought that expressed a subjective point of view on some aspect of administrative orientation and, more specifi cally, the four general elements identifi ed in the literature review. Th ese included statements about administrative values (e.g., “Bureaucratic systems are wasteful and ineffi cient”), needs (e.g., “I often wonder about my job security”), behaviors and attitudes (e.g., “Entrepreneurship is not limited to the business sector”) and reward preferences (e.g., “Much of what I do is for a cause bigger than myself ”).

It was anticipated that categorical divergence might occur between private and public conceptions of normative legitimacy. Consequently, the Q-set contained (1) statements expressing a “public-leaning” view on each of the four substantive dimensions outlined earlier and (2) statements refl ecting a more “private-leaning” perspective. However, the fi nal Q-set purposefully contained statements whose sector orientation was more opaque or even unknown. Eff orts were made to select statements that would invite the widest possible variety of viewpoints. In addition to seeking full and nonduplicative coverage of the research topic, succinct statements were favored over verbose ones out of concern for sorting expedience (Watts and Stenner 2012). A total of 40 statements were selected for use in this study; a full list is given in the appendix.

Participant Selection

Q studies typically rely on theoretical participant selection techniques for the composition of the person sample or “P-set.” McKeown and Th omas (1988) recommend that if respondents’ points of view are expected to vary as a function of a particular attribute, the P-set should be balanced accordingly. Accordingly, this study’s P-set was designed to facilitate representation from public, private, proprietary, nonproprietary, two-year, and four-year

provides a plausible skeleton of the public service orientation. Further, the substance of this outline plays a key role in shaping the content of the Q methodological instrument applied in this analysis.

Related Research on Postsecondary Executives

Postsecondary executives have received meager attention from public administration scholars interested in illuminating the public service orientation. Scant data exists to link college administrators to any particular professional orientation, much less the public service orientation. Dennison, in fact, laments that “much of the extant literature concerning the university [presidency] appears trivial at best and oﬀ ensive at worst” (2001, 270).

To what extent does the academic literature suggest that campus executives endeavor to serve the public interest? Th omas asserts that the opportunities for university administrators to engage with the public are many: “Institutional leaders, including trustees, academic aff airs offi cers, deans, and particularly presidents, can play an important role in a community. Th ey serve on local boards, speak at public and private events, host parties or provide a forum for addressing particular issues, and comment for the media about current events” (2000, 76). Kubala and Bailey (2001) contend that community colleges are especially well connected to their external communities, mainly because such institutions often are fi nanced through local tax revenues. Writing about college presidents specifi cally, Nelson follows that, “With remarkable consistency, presidents have nearly universally affi rmed … the responsibility of colleges and their students to uphold the critical social and civic virtues associated with American society” (2000, 109). Yet apart from the rhetorical fl ourishes that punctuate presidential addresses, little evidence exists that helps us understand whether a public orientation is truly ingrained in the professional sensibilities of campus leaders.

Empirical evidence for an external orientation among college executives does exist. Neumann and Bensimon (1990), using an interview design, identify four distinct role orientations among college presidents. One of the four “presidential types” generated by these authors, referred to only as “Presidential Type A,” reﬂ ects a strong external orientation with a clear commitment to the public goods delivered by higher education. According to Neumann and Bensimon, “Presidents reﬂ ecting type A are more than institutional spokespersons or ambassadors to the outside world; they are active participants in and shapers of that outside world. Most assume an active public service role—for themselves as individuals and for their institutions” (1990, 686).

A broad review of the relevant literature suggests that the Q methodological approach used in the present article is uncharacteristic of this research area. Only one known study has directly probed the public service orientation using Q methodology (Brewer, Selden, and Facer 2000). Further, studies on the public service orientation typically have not attempted to illuminate the comprehensive perspectives of their research participants. Most studies have proceeded from quantitative designs—typically based on surveys or other

Yet apart from the rhetorical ﬂ ourishes that punctuate presi- dential addresses, little evidence exists that helps us understand whether a public orientation is

truly ingrained in the professional sensibilities of campus

leaders.

Table 2 Participant Characteristics

Following advice from Creswell (1998), the study used “member

Percent

checks” as its main veriﬁ cation technique. Following analysis, a

Total participants —

subset of n = 14 participants was provided (by e-mail) with a pre-

By institutional type Public, 2-year

5 13.5 liminary written summary of each factor and asked to identify the

Public, 4-year

18 48.6 perspective that “sounds most like you.” Participants were encour-

Private, proprietary, 2-year

1 2.7 aged to elaborate on the reasons for their choice of a self-deﬁ ning

Private, proprietary, 4-year

4 10.8 perspective. Th is feedback was useful in shaping the ﬁ nal interpreta-

Private, nonproprietary, 2-year

Private, nonproprietary, 4-year

8 21.6 tion of the study’s factors.

Total

By full-time enrollment Under 5,000

19 51.4 Analysis and Findings

7 18.9 Factor Analysis and Factor Arrays

8 21.6 In Q methodology, factor analysis centers on the intercorrelation of

20,000 or more

entire Q sorts rather than individual variables. Th e principal components analysis with varimax rotation performed on the current data

Total

By administrative title

President a 18 48.6

recommended a two-factor solution, that is, two dominant perspec-

VP (Academic) b

VP (Administrative) c 6 16.2 tives expressed by respondents. Yet even after rotation, a number

Dean

7 18.9 of mixed-loaded cases (those with signiﬁ cant loadings on multiple

Total

factors) remained in the data set. To resolve the problem of mixed

By time in current position Fewer than 5 years

17 45.9 loadings, sorts were deﬁ ned (i.e., ﬂ agged as being representative of a

5–10 years

12 32.4 factor) manually. Th is approach ensured that no severely mixed cases

11–15 years

3 8.1 would shape the developing factor structure. Altogether, ﬁ ve “pure”

16–20 years

3 8.1 cases were ﬂ agged for factor 1 and three such cases were ﬂ agged for

factor 2. Th e resultant factor arrays (discussed later) produced a ﬁ nal Pearson’s a. Includes one retired president and two interim presidents. r of .392.

More than 20 years

Total

b. Includes participants holding the title “dean of the college.” c. Includes vice presidents of fi nance, administration, and enrollment

Factor arrays were computed using the PQMethod platform. Factor

management.

arrays (see appendix) indicate the relative importance of each statement within each factor and are constructed by merging the Q sorts

institutions. Participation was limited to a select cluster of organiza- of purely loaded respondents. Factor arrays comprise factor scores, tional roles: presidents, chief academic oﬃ cers, academic or admin-

which are simply transformed z-scores (ranging from –4 to +4) gen- istrative vice presidents, and academic deans.

erated from the composited raw scores of factor exemplars. Expecting a modest rejection rate, 77 campus administrators in the

Findings and Interpretation

Midwest were contacted with an oﬀ er to participate in the study.

A word about the geometric properties of the factors is in order. Participation was solicited using an invitation letter followed by a

As has been noted, the principal components analysis and varimax direct phone call to each administrator’s oﬃ

rotation of the study’s Q sort data resulted in two factor arrays that vetting the prospective participant, discussing the research topic,

ce for the purpose of

were correlated at a level of r = .392. Further, the tendency for par- and scheduling a meeting date. Altogether, 37 participants were

ticipants to load positively on both factors suggested a dual unipolar mustered; participant characteristics are shown in table 2.

loading distribution. Figure 1 provides a scatterplot of rotated factor loadings. Th e highlighted observations nearest to either axis denote

Q Sorting

the cases ﬂ agged as “deﬁ ning” for each factor. Data collection was conducted on site by the researcher. Participants were instructed to sort printed statements into the shape of a quasi-

Th e plots shown in this ﬁ gure indicate that the participants’ factor normal distribution with a –4 to +4 rating scale. Sorts were completed

loadings were not orthogonal but rather were obliquely related. Th e under the following condition of instruction: “Sort these items accord- absence of statistical independence between factor loadings leads ing to those with which you most agree (+4) to those with which you most disagree (–4).” By this method, participants were allowed to place

a speciﬁ ed number of cards into each column of a histogram-like pat- tern that forced most statements into a middle “neutral” classiﬁ cation, with fewer statements in each tail of the distribution.

At the close of each session, participants were asked to provide verbal responses to a brief sequence of closed- and open-ended contextual questions. In many cases, these questions led to additional, unstructured conversations about the general research topic. Th ese conversations allowed participants to oﬀ er an eclectic range of professional stories, informal hypotheses, and personal musings. Audio recordings of all sorting sessions were made, and these recordings greatly enriched the study’s analysis phase.

Figure 1 Scatterplot of Rotated Factor Loading

444 Public Administration Review • May | June 2013

Th e concern for public well-being indicated by the foregoing statements also seems to extend to these participants’ conceptions of appropriate managerial conduct. Societal trustees are marked by a desire to foster administrative transparency, as well as a rejection of the notion that the need for eﬃ ciency overrides the competing value of equity. Both observations suggest that administrators of this disposition tend to ascribe some level of importance to the notion of stakeholder deference.

Statement 33: I try to act in a manner that is open and visible to relevant stakeholders, both on and oﬀ campus. (+4 +1)‡

Statement 16: In my role, eﬃ ciency is more important than

Figure 2 Venn Representation of Shared Factor Space

equity or fairness. (–3 –2) Participants’ appraisals of certain facets of the administrative envi-

to the conclusion that these two perspectives were not mutually ronment also are revealing. Societal trustees show a favorable view of exclusive. Indeed, most participants occupied a middle ground that

the policy-making enterprise. Responses are suggestive of a personal shared characteristics with two “ideal types.” Despite this overlap

aﬃ nity for the consensus-building aspects of the policy process, as (see ﬁ gure 2 for conceptual representation), a small subset of par-

well as a distaste for the insinuation that “politics” is a pejorative ticipants expressed a relatively pure alignment with one pole or the

concept. At the same time, these administrators appear not to relish other, and these accounts provided the leverage needed to examine

the opportunity to fraternize with other power elites. the normative structure of each factor. Statement 24: Th e give and take of policy making appeals to Factor 1: Societal trusteeship. Participants loading on this factor

me. (+3 –1)†

convey a humanistic concern for external society and view themselves as members of an interconnected world. Th ey see themselves

Statement 8: “Politics” is a dirty word. (–2 –2) as promoters of the public interest and embrace a sense of responsibility for facilitating social equity. Th is external orientation perme-

Statement 17: I take pleasure in getting chances to “rub ates not only these participants’ common sense of vocational scope

elbows” with important people. (–2 –1)‡ but also their shared societal telos. Th ese views are underpinned by factor scores from the following statements: 5 Further, in comparison with organizational stewards (discussed later), societal trustees tend to be more dismissive about the importance of

Statement 7: I am often reminded by daily events how one’s occupational prospects. Th ese participants seem to experience dependent we are on one another. (+4 0)†

little anxiety with respect to job security and also downplay the need to establish steady footing within the professional ranks.

Statement 6: I actively recommend policy positions that represent general public needs and interests. (+2 –3)†

Statement 18: I often wonder about my job security. (–2 0)† Statement 28: If any group does not share in the prosperity of

Statement 13: In terms of my career, it is important to me to our society, then we are all worse oﬀ . (+2 –2)†

create a secure and comfortable future. (–1 +1)‡ Statement 39: Service to humanity is the best work of life.

Factor 2: Organizational stewardship. Whereas societal trustees (+2 –2)†

are fundamentally oriented toward society at large, organizational stewards are distinguished by the emphasis that they place on their

Societal trustees are fundamentally concerned with the improve- own institutions. Th eirs is an internal perspective, one that focuses ment of macro-level social conditions, and they appear willing to

diligently on the welfare of their organizations. Th ey are critically take an active role in that venture by way of institutional channels.

concerned with the operational management of their institutions and Th ese observations comport with participants’ treatment of state-

tout their on-campus labors as a source of pride. Further, their atten- ments reﬂ ecting altruistic orientations to society. Th ey ﬁ rmly reject

tion to the internal aﬀ airs of their institutions begets a high degree the primacy of ﬁ nancial remuneration as a meaningful professional

of personal commitment to their respective organizations. Both of reward and also underscore the salience of service to humanity as a

the two highest-ranked statements in the factor array for this group powerful motivator.

(Statements 34 and 2) were distinguishing between the factors. Statement 29: Doing well ﬁ nancially is more important to me

Statement 2: I am proud to be working for this organization. than doing good deeds. (–4 –1)†

Statement 30: Making a diﬀ erence in society means more to Statement 34: What happens to this organization is really me than personal achievements. (+3 +2)

important to me. (+3 +4)‡

College Administrators as Public Servants 445

Statement 5: I am committed to my campus and its stake-

be positively correlated with one another, and 17 of the study’s 37 holders. (+2 +3)

participants generated signiﬁ cant loadings on both factors. Th e prevalence of mixed factor loadings points to the possibility that

Th is pronounced sense of responsibility to the organization is rather than bisecting participants into two separate groups, the Q coupled with a drive for personal control and professional achieve-

sample instead activated two diﬀ erent dimensions of a unitary but ment. Compared with societal trustees, organizational stewards

complex managerial perspective. Th is possibility is further borne out report a tendency to exert control when dealing with others and to

by the observation that even after limiting the extraction of z-score disapprove of bureaucratic mechanisms. Th ese characteristics seem

arrays to the purely loading “true believers” of each factor, the fac- consistent with stereotypical images of the “take-charge” manager

tors still show evidence of normative overlap. and reinforce these participants’ aspirations for professional success. At the same time, the organizational stewardship view does not

Th is certainly is not to say that the factors are indistinct. Several

appear to be associated with autocratic leanings, as its adherents also deep ﬁ ssures are indicated by the factor arrays. In general, societal aﬃ rm the notion of pluralist decision making.

trustees exhibit an externally oriented, humanist perspective. Th is point of view underscores a need for social equity and communi-

Statement 23: I tend to tell people what I like and what I cates a willingness to apply organizational polices to the beneﬁ t of don’t like, and what I want them to do. (–1 +3)†

the broader public. Perhaps consequently, transparency and fairness are underscored as administrative values. Th e policy process is seen

Statement 14: Bureaucratic systems are wasteful and ineﬃ - as an appealing endeavor, though likely not because of the opportu- cient. (–1 +1)†

nities that it aﬀ ords for socializing with elites. Financial compensa- tion is rebuﬀ ed as a professional motivator, and job security is not a

Statement 2: I have a very strong desire to be a success in this

pressing consideration.

world. (0 +3)† Th e second factor is deﬁ ned by a strong sense of organizational

Statement 20: My work as an administrator ﬁ ts into a plural- stewardship. Th e welfare of the institution is of primary interest, ist decision making system in which many competing actors

and this concern fosters feelings of organizational involvement have a part. (+1 +2)

and pride. Th e broader needs of society are seen as legitimate concerns but not a realistic object of institutional resources. Th is

Organizational stewards, then, tended to place on the positive end perspective is somewhat more growth oriented and entrepreneur- of the Q distribution statements related to organizational well-being

ial than its counterpart and ﬁ nds little satisfaction in bureaucratic and a goal-directed personal orientation. On the opposite pole of the

mechanisms or the policy process. Professional success is of keen sorting continuum, these administrators deﬁ ne themselves in ways

signiﬁ cance, and personal assertiveness is a deﬁ ning characteristic. seemingly antithetical to the other factor perspective. In particular,

It appears that qualitative diﬀ erences between the factors are present, organizational stewards express skepticism with the idea that institu- but they are by no means purely adversarial and show several points tional priorities should be subjugated in the interest of the public good: of contact. First, both factors are marked by feelings of professional

accomplishment. Both factors reject the asser- Statement 25: I would prefer seeing cam- tion that work does not engender a sense of pus oﬃ cials do what is best for the larger

achievement, but at the same time, both are community, even if it harmed the school’s

Both factors involve some

extent of reﬂ ection about com- lukewarm to the idea that this satisfaction is

interests. (0 –4)†

derived from social recognition. Second, while Also in stark contrast to societal trustees,

munity issues, though societal

trustees appear more apt to

the organizational stewardship viewpoint is characterized by its intraorganizational orienta-

organizational stewards express a lack of aﬀ ec-

consider an interventional role

tion, feelings of attachment to one’s campus tion for the policy-making process (Statement

for their institutions.

weigh prominently for societal trustees as well.

24) and a less visceral reaction to the role Alignment with either factor entails a commit- of ﬁ nancial motives (Statement 29). Th is ment to one’s current institution and a concern perspective seems slightly more disposed to favor an entrepreneurial, for its welfare. Finally, societal trustees are not alone in their contem- pro-growth administrative agenda, although not through high-risk plation of social conditions. Indeed, both factors involve some extent organizational strategies: of reﬂ ection about community issues, though societal trustees appear

more apt to consider an interventional role for their institutions. Statement 19: I like to see rewards go to the entrepreneurial

units on campus. (0 +2)

Conclusions: A Split Personality?

Th ese mixed loadings and partially overlapping factor scores com- Statement 32: One of my key responsibilities is successfully

bine to suggest that rather than bilateral adversaries, the two factors growing the institution’s operations and capacity. (+1 +2)

are likely to be semi-integrated shades of the same global orientation. But what would account for the coexistence of views that seem

Statement 31: Campuses must be risk takers. (+2 –1)‡

somewhat conﬂ icted if not contradictory?

Summary of factors. A recap is in order. First, it is clear that the Th is question calls to mind the notion of cognitive complexity, a factors are not dichotomously populated. Raw Q sorts tended to

concept that has been used in various management literatures to

446 Public Administration Review • May | June 2013 446 Public Administration Review • May | June 2013

on the organizational stewardship perspective multiple perspectives to bear on complex

It can be noted that two of the

were situated in for-proﬁ t institutions, while decisions. Bartunek, Gordon, and Weathersby

three purely loaded cases on

all ﬁ ve societal trusteeship exemplars worked suggest that “complicated understand-

the organizational stewardship

perspective were situated in for- in public or private nonproﬁ t institutions.

ing involves the ability to apply multiple,

proﬁ t institutions, while all ﬁ ve Further, organizational stewards tended, on

complimentary perspectives to describing and average, to be substantially younger than their analyzing events” (1983, 275). To make sense

societal trusteeship exemplars

societal trustee counterparts, suggesting a pos- of multiple and conﬂ icting realities, then,

sible diﬀ erence in outlook between early-career organizational leaders often must embrace a

worked in public or private

and late-career administrators. palette of cognitive frameworks or interpre-

nonproﬁ t institutions. Further,

organizational stewards tended,

tive lenses (Weick 1995). Similarly, Bolman

Alternatively, situational factors may have and Deal (2008) assert that the use of varied

on average, to be substantially

younger than their societal triggered the expression of a particular fac-

“cognitive frames” is a behavioral hallmark of tor. Birnbaum (2002) observes that campus organizational leaders.

trustee counterparts, suggesting executives are, ﬁ rst and foremost, storytellers.

a possible diﬀ erence in outlook Postsecondary leaders are captains of institu-

Particularly in the present era, the vast admin-

tional values and, as such, must shape shared istrative complexities encountered by postsec-

between early-career and late-

conceptions of reality through compelling ondary executives create a need for complex

career administrators.

narratives. As storytellers, college executives management orientations. New challenges—

must artfully project a cogent worldview to such as increasing pressures for productivity, accountability, and

their listeners. Bolman and Deal add that the essence of selecting aﬀ ordability, uncertain political, economic, and regulatory condi-

and eﬀ ectively applying a particular cognitive frame lies in “match- tions, and movement toward radically redesigned delivery mecha-

ing situational cues with a well-learned mental framework” (2008, nisms—present college administrators with environments that seem 11). Perhaps then, it is possible that contextual features (e.g., markedly unsettled. Del Favero notes that “[m]ulti-dimensional, or

professional background or institutional factors) or situational fea- multi-frame thinking then, as a measure of cognitive complexity,

tures (e.g., perceptions about the research task) may have activated can be considered a requisite tool for university leaders in a time

a particular cognitive script held by the study’s participants. Post when many believe the challenges presented to the leadership of

hoc veriﬁ cation responses from participants tended to support this higher education are greater than ever before” (2006, 285).

interpretation. Feedback from one respondent highlights the ﬂ uid, situational nature of alignment with one perspective over the other:

Perhaps it should not be surprising, then, that data from the present study seem indicative of multiple perspective taking by

[Th e two perspectives] are obviously not dichotomous, and college executives. Such an assertion is not new to research on

I feel that both of them show in my own perspective of my the administrative worldviews of postsecondary leaders. Earlier

position and the duties and obligations of the deanship. I researchers have found that college presidents tend to simultane-

would say that these are two diﬀ ering themes in an average ously embrace an array of managerial perspectives and that situ-

deanship, with one winning out over the other in particular ational cues may inﬂ uence the ways in which presidents present

circumstances. I would bet that you would ﬁ nd that people are themselves to others (Bensimon 1990; Neumann and Bensimon

very contextually oriented, and that in some instances they 1990). Cohen and March (1974) and Birnbaum and Eckel (2005)

were “A” and some more “B like.” (emphasis added) propose that the college presidency is characterized by three main roles—administrator, politician, and entrepreneur—and that each

Th e blending of administrative perspectives seen in the current role places diﬀ erent demands on the incumbent. Presidents and

study would seem to bear important implications for the public other senior college administrators are expected to oscillate—often

service orientation literature. In particular, the foregoing discussion on a daily basis—among the many “hats” of oﬃ

may underscore a chief reason for the inconsistent or inconclusive points combine to suggest that the myriad obligations of the higher ﬁ ndings that have marked this area of research. Th e next section education executive are undergirded by a discrete set of cognitive

ce. Th ese view-

examines the conceptual points of contact between the public serv- schemata. Indeed, Birnbaum and Eckel refer to the “schemas of

ice orientation and the study’s factors.

eﬀ ectiveness” (2005, 359) that college executives construct as a means to reconcile perceived ambiguity in the workplace. Under

Discussion of the Public Service Orientation

this view, it seems plausible that the Q instrument simply tapped Th e current study was proposed not only as a means to explore the the societal trusteeship schema among some participants while

administrative orientations of college executives, but also to ﬂ esh eliciting the organizational stewardship schema among others.

out the public service orientation in a previously untapped venue. Th e study so far has delayed discussion of the latter topic to avoid

Understanding individual participants’ leanings toward one or the tainting the study’s interpretation with “logico-categorical” com- other of the study’s factors is a matter unto itself. Th e extent to which mentary. 6 What, then, is the ﬁ nal word on the comparison between institutional or other demographic factors may have motivated par-

the study’s operant factors and the public service orientation? ticular patterns of response is, of course, an empirical question, but one that the small- n data generated by the present study are not well

Th e perspectives painted by this study are reminiscent of those oﬀ ered suited to answer. Th ough far from statistically compelling, it can be

by earlier researchers. Societal trusteeship conjures up notions of

College Administrators as Public Servants 447

Brewer, Selden, and Facer’s “samaritans,” who, while not stirred by any precise structure of the public service orientation—particularly on proverbial sense of duty, see themselves as compassionate “guardians

college campuses—may require researchers to hit a moving target. of the underprivileged” (2000, 257). Selden, Brewer, and Brudney’s (1999) typology of bureaucratic role orientations, with its “stewards

Implications

of the public interest” exemplar, also is called to mind. Finally, societal Perhaps the most important implication of this study for higher educa- trustees’ human relations orientation seems uncannily similar to that

tion researchers arises from the ﬁ nding that senior college administra- of “Presidential Type A” proposed by Neumann and Bensimon (1990, tors appear to simultaneously identify with multiple role orientations. 686). As described by these authors, such execu-

Rather than normative monists, these executives tives “are generally concerned about making

tend to be value pluralists whose administrative major contributions to the state, to the country,

Perhaps the most important

lenses appear transitory and situational. Th is to humanity, or to local regions or communi-

implication of this study for

conclusion not only is consistent with cogni- ties. Th ey visualize the institution as a partici-

higher education researchers

tive complexity theory but also makes sense in pant in an increasingly interdependent world.”

arises from the ﬁ nding that

light of college administrators’ multifaceted task

environments. Th is pluralism would seem to It seems clear that the societal trusteeship

senior college administra-

call into question the eﬀ orts of earlier research- perspective represents the cleanest approxima-

tors appear to simultaneously

ers to taxonomize campus executives into singu- tion of the idealized public service orienta-

identify with multiple role

lar administrative “types.” Such approaches may tion. Perry’s (1996) formal model of public

orientations.

underestimate college administrators’ tendency service motivation (PSM) includes four main

to see the world in multidimensional ways. dimensions: attraction to policy making, commitment to the public Consequently, the current ﬁ ndings may compel scholars to reframe the interest, compassion, and self-sacriﬁ ce. It can be argued that all

ways in which they conceptualize other administrative technologies, four dimensions are present in the societal trusteeship perspective.

such as leadership style and managerial approach. However, this perspective also is dissimilar from typical descriptions of public servants in that it appears unconcerned with occupational

By extension, this logic implicates the vast majority of studies on the stability. At the same time, the organizational stewardship perspective public service orientation and underscores the present study’s main appears normatively distant from the public service orientation but

contribution to the public administration literature. Public admin- still is deﬁ ned by a prevailing sense of duty.

istration theorists have devoted decades to the task of discerning the public service orientation. Critically, most studies have proceeded

Neither of the factors isolated by the present study represents a from one central, implicit assumption: that the public service orien- “glass slipper” match to the classic public service orientation. While

tation is a cleanly measurable and stable construct that is, with suﬃ - this outcome may speak to the nature of the research instrument or

cient time and eﬀ ort, empirically deﬁ nable. Th e normative blending the participant group, another reasonable conclusion exists. It may

seen in the present analysis challenges this view and, consequently,

be that the “classic” public service orientation (to the extent that any calls for a reexamination of this core assumption. such thing exists) is a more conceptually complex construct than is implied by most of the extant research.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Like any work of scholarship, this project admits a number of Some writers have hinted at this. Th e venerable Anthony Downs

analytic strengths and weaknesses. In this study, Q methodology (1967) notes an intermingling of self-interest and altruism in the

allowed for the mapping of complex perspectives by drawing out professional motives of bureaucratic oﬃ cials. Nalbandian and

participants’ whole responses, as opposed to individual traits or Edwards (1983) further suggest that public administrators are

characteristics. Th is capability paved the way for naturalistic, com- marked by a deﬁ ning value set, but that this value set overlaps with

prehensive, and subject-centered analysis.

those of other professional groups. More recently, Q methodologists Brewer, Selden, and Facer assert that “PSM is more complex than

At the same time, the current study is limited in its theoretical depicted in previous studies that have explored adjunct concepts

characterization of “administrative orientation.” Because the study and contrasted groups … we ﬁ nd that the motives for performing

centered only on the aspects administrative orientation that are public service are mixed” (2000, 261).

relevant to the public service orientation literature, the items used in the statement sample were undoubtedly restrictive. For example,

Th ese appraisals cast doubt on the public service orientation as a participants were not asked to reﬂ ect on their views toward aﬃ rma- homogenous and invariable concept. Comparison of the study’s

tive action, preferred accounting principles, or casual Fridays—as factors to the public service orientation is challenged further by the

these aspects of administrative orientation do not bear appreciably possibility that the public service orientation itself is not only some- on the public service orientation. Subsequent Q methodologists what indistinct but also shifting. Particularly in light of contempo-

studying the broad worldviews of college executives may wish to use rary eﬀ orts to “redesign, to reinvent, to reinvigorate” the culture of

a more inclusive and less structured statement sample, one that is the public sector, it seems reasonable to think that the normative

not based on an a priori theoretical framework. Th is strategy would mold of the public steward has changed, and continues to change. 7 allow researchers to see whether similar factors emerge even when

Contemporary higher education seems an especially murky petri they are not being “lured” by the instrument. dish for observing public service values in light of the indeﬁ nite deﬁ nitions of “public” and “private” in academe (Marginson 2007;

Investigating the demographic drivers of administrative orientation Newman and Clark 2009). Accordingly, future eﬀ orts to peg the

(e.g., gender, geography, institutional factors, and even national

448 Public Administration Review • May | June 2013 448 Public Administration Review • May | June 2013

leadership through such posts as president, chief academic oﬃ cer, vice president,

(1990) surmise that context plays a key role in shaping the leader-

or dean. Such executives traditionally rise from the ranks of the professorate

ship orientations of college executives. Indeed, numerous partici-

and exercise primary control over major administrative and academic functions.

pants volunteered a casual hypothesis about the demographic drivers

Consequently, the project no doubt reﬂ ects its sociocultural and structural roots

of administrative orientation. Yet, while Q methodology is able to

in the U.S. postsecondary system.

bring holistic worldviews into sharper relief, alternative tools are

2. Th

e recent ouster and subsequent reinstatement of University of Virginia

needed to explore their incidence in the working world. On this

president Teresa Sullivan by the Board of Visitors oﬀ ers a potent example of such

point, Danielson (2009) shares ideas for integrating Q methodology

board activism.

with traditional survey methods, noting that each of these method-

3. Th

e “related original study” mentioned here was an unpublished qualitative

ologies capitalizes on the weaknesses of the other. Such methodo-

examination of public service values conducted as part of a doctoral seminar at a

logical pluralism may aﬀ ord new opportunities for grounding the

Midwestern research university.

current ﬁ ndings in the realm of professional practice.

4. All analysis was conducted in PQMethod 2.11, a freeware analytic platform developed by Peter Schmolck of Bundeswehr University Munich.

Notes

5. Values in parentheses display the factor scores for factors one and two, 1. Th

e term “college administrator” is used here in an American context. In respectively. Factor scores ranged from –4 (most disagree) to +4 (most agree). general, this review applies this term to executives holding positions of academic

Th ose statements that were “distinguishing” (i.e., generated signiﬁ cant factor

Appendix Statement Sample: Z-Scores, Ranks, and Factor Scores

Factor 2 No.

Factor 1

Statement

Z-Score Score 1 I believe in putting duty before self.

Z-Score

Score

0 0.85 2 2 I am proud to be working for this organization.

0.82 1 1.76 4 3 It is hard for me to get intensely interested in what is going on in my community.

–1.54 –3 4 A good administrator will expose what he/she views as unethical conduct, even if that

College Administrators as Public Servants