Strategic Management Research StudiesDr. Salas.docx

Strategic Management Research Studies
Dr. Salas
Choose a Publicly Traded Company &
Identify a company that is either
Pursuing a strategy (domestically, locally, or globally)
Overcoming a threat in the external environment
Experiencing quality control/quality management issues, or
Personnel issues.
Provide the following for the chosen company:
Mission

Vision
Strategic Objectives
Market Analysis
Human Resources Management
High level overview SWOT
Financial Analysis (include trend analysis, liquidity,
profitability, and solvency ratios.
Mission Statement (Marriott)
Marriott’s mission statement is “to enhance the lives of our
customers by creating and enabling unsurpassed vacation and
leisure experiences.”
Vison Statement
Marriott’s vision statement is “to become the premiere provider
and facilitator of leisure & vacation experiences in the world.”

Strategic Objectives
Sales efforts around how the customer wants to buy, reducing
duplication of efforts by individual hotels and allowing us to
cover a larger number of accounts.
We also utilize innovative and sophisticated revenue
management systems, many of which are proprietary, which we
believe provide a competitive advantage in pricing decisions,
increasing efficiency and producing higher property-level
revenue for hotels in our portfolio.
Most of the hotels in our portfolio utilize web-based programs
to effectively manage the rate set-up and modification processes
which provides for greater pricing flexibility, reduces time
spent on rate program creation and maintenance, and increases
the speed to market of new products and services.
Credit Card Programs
Credit Card Programs. We have multi-year agreements with JP
Morgan Chase and American Express for our U.S.-issued, co-
brand credit cards associated with our Loyalty Program.

We also license credit card programs in Canada, the United
Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, and Japan.
We earn license fees based on card usage, and we believe that
our co-brand credit cards contribute to the success of our
Loyalty Program and reflect the quality and value of our
portfolio of brands.
Sustainability and Social Responsibility
Our Sustainability and Social Impact Platform, Serve 360:
Doing Good In Every Direction, is built around four focus
areas: Nurture Our World; Sustain Responsible Operations;
Empower Through Opportunity; and Welcome All and Advance
Human Rights.
Market Analysis
Identify your audience
Define your target consumers
Explain what market need you satisfy
Analyze the industry

Identify market trends
Provide a competitive analysis
Draft a short summary of the market analysis
Adjust the other sections of your business plan
Human Resources Management
Attracting, Recruiting, selecting, hiring, training, and
compensating personnel
(1) Understand the role of an organizational philosophy and
culture in the development of human resource policies in a
multinational organization;
(2) Get insights into the HR best practices of a large global
service organization:
(3) Understand the role of employee development programs for
retaining employees and improving organizational productivity;
and (4) Appreciate the benefits that accrue to an organisation
through the use of employee-friendly policies.
Define the issue or problem
To make an analysis or recommendation, one must first
determine what the issue or problem is.

As in the real world, note there may be more than one problem
in a case study analysis.
(You can appreciate the importance of this step if you ever took
your car in because it was running rough and paid for several
repairs because the mechanic didn’t correctly diagnose the
problem in the beginning.)
Identify an Area to Work On
Outside the U.S., branding is much less prevalent, and most
markets are served primarily by independent operators, although
branding is more common for new hotel development.
We believe that chain affiliation will increase in many overseas
markets as local economies grow, trade barriers decline,
international travel accelerates, and hotel owners seek the
economies of centralized reservation systems and marketing
programs.
Conduct your analysis
What are the possible causes of the problem or issue?

What alternatives are possible given the facts presented?
This is the most time-consuming step, and the step with the
greatest variation. There may be many possibilities.
It might be helpful to list all solutions you can think of before
focusing on the most useful or valid.
There is not necessarily a right answer, but there may be several
alternatives that lead to varying outcomes.
The quality of analysis will depend upon application of theory
learned in the classroom and through research.
Financial Analysis
Financial Ratio Analysis
Make Recommendations
Choose the recommendation you believe to be the best, justify
it, and develop it.
Recommendations may be made in the form of an action plan to
solve the problem or issue. Or, recommendations may involve

the choice of the best alternative for resolving the issue or
problem.
Recommendations made must be thoroughly developed and
supported.
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill {
fill:#4472C4;
}
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke {
stroke:#4472C4;
}
Public Integrity, 20: 459–477, 2018
Copyright © American Society for Public Administration
ISSN: 1099-9922 print/1558-0989 online
DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2017.1419053
Ethics in American Public Administration: A Response to
a Changing Reality
Imane Hijal-Moghrabi
University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Meghna Sabharwal
University of Texas at Dallas

This article tracks the evolution of ethics in American public
administration from the inception of
the field in the late nineteenth century to the present, and
employs the ethical lens to address some
of the current pressing problems (e.g., immigration, climate
change, and e-surveillance). The study
acknowledges the fact that ethics has not evolved in a vacuum.
Ever since the Progressive Era,
various forces—social, political, legal, as well as
technological—have greatly shaped the evolution
of ethics, with every era injecting its opportunities and
challenges, as well as its dictating values.
This article highlights the continuity of ethics in public
administration, by arguing that administrat-
ive ethics has not been static as it evolved over the years; it has
evolved not by omission but by
addition, in reflecting the changing reality of every age.
Keywords: administrative ethics, American public
administration, ethical challenges, ethical
development
This article tracks the evolution of ethics in American public
administration from the inception
of the field in the late nineteenth century to the present, and
employs the ethical lens to address
some of the current pressing problems (e.g., immigration,
climate change, etc.). The study
acknowledges the fact that ethics in American public
administration has not evolved in a
vacuum. Ever since the Progressive Era, various forces—social,
political, legal, as well as
technological—have greatly shaped the evolution of ethics, with
every era injecting its
opportunities and challenges, as well as its dictating values.

In defining ethics as the rigorous reflection and articulation of
morality, this article promises
insights into how to approach normative and moral questions in
public organizations. The
newness of this study lies not in the threads used, because much
has been written on ethics
in the relevant literature, but in addressing some of the ethical
concerns and challenges that have
not been given due attention in PA scholarship. This study is
important to various audiences.
Students of public administration will find in it a concise
summary of how ethics in public
administration has evolved over the years. Practitioners will
gain insights into how to approach
ethical issues in the twenty-first century.
none defined
Correspondence should be sent to Imane Hijal-Moghrabi, Public
Administration and Leadership Program, The
University of Texas of the Permian Basin, 4901 E. University,
Odessa, TX 79762, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1419053
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8765-491X
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1294-559X
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10999922.2
017.1419053&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-05-02
mailto:[email protected]
This article is organized into three main sections and a
conclusion. The first section provides
a historical overview of the evolution of ethics in public
administration from the Progressive
Era to the present, highlighting the dictating ethical values of

every era. The second section
sheds light on some of the ethical challenges that public
organizations face today. The third
section provides a guide for public managers on how to manage
ethics today. The conclusion
reflects on the evolution and continuity of ethics in public
administration.
THE EVOLUTION OF ETHICS IN AMERICAN PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
The evolution of ethics in Public Administration can be
subdivided into six main eras: (1) the
Progressive Era; (2) the New Deal and Post–Second World War
Era; (3) the Civil Rights Era;
(4) The Post-Watergate Era; (5) the Reinventing Government
Era; and (6) the Current Era of the
New Governance.
The Progressive Era (Late Nineteenth–Early Twentieth Century)
The Pre-Progressive Era—also known as the Jacksonian Era—
created the need for fighting
corruption and for finding ways and means to improve
government performance. To this
end, the Progressive reforms of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries aimed at
transforming public administration into a professionalized,
businesslike endeavor. These efforts
were translated by the passage and implementation of the
Pendleton Act of 1883, which laid
down the foundations of a depoliticized, merit-based civil
service; by Woodrow Wilson’s claim
to separate administration from politics by making government
“less unbusinesslike” (Wilson,
1887), and by the adoption of scientific management principles

(Taylor, 1912/2007).
Accordingly, in the Progressive Era, the main concern of
scholars and practitioners was how
to improve organizational performance by running government
more like a business. Widely
adopted performance strategies were then based on scientific
management principles of fixed
standards and instrumental rationalization of work processes
(Taylor, 1912/2007) as well as
on managerial principles and skills (Gulick & Urwick, 1937),
thus leaving little room for
politics, error in judgment, and other ethical concerns. As such,
public administrators endlessly
sought to improve organizational performance by pursuing the
holy trilogy of efficiency,
effectiveness, and economy. It was assumed that doing what one
was told by organizational
superiors in the most efficient way possible amounted to ethical
administration. Thus, questions
of ethics were not separated from performance, as they were
guided by the Wilsonian legacy of
neutral competency—of getting the job done (Menzel, 1997, p.
224).
However, this does not imply that the Progressives did not give
ethical judgment a due
regard (Goodnow, 1900/2007; Taylor, 1912/2007; Wilson,
1887). In fact, the movement of
the late 1890s and early 1920s was morally charged and,
therefore, first and foremost, about
ethical judgment. For Wilson, the emphasis on running
government as a business was by its
very nature a moral statement as it meant to decrease the
influence of politics and machine
corruption on administration. Moral judgment is very often

(although sometimes) implicitly
behind the organizational or management approach in various
stages of the history of public
administration.
460 HIJAL-MOGHRABI AND SABHARWAL
The New Deal and the post–WWII Era (1930s–1950s)
In the New Deal Era, efforts to rationalize government that had
started in the Progressive Era
were institutionalized by the passage of the Administrative
Reorganization Act of 1939, which
sought to control the federal administration by centralizing all
executive powers in the hand of
the Presidency. Scientific and managerial principles continued
to be applied widely. However,
with the expansion of the government machinery to find
solutions to societal problems that
emanated from the Great Depression, federal action emerged as
the blueprint for efficiency,
which would emphasize rules rather than men, and competence
rather than favoritism. Unlike
the Wilsonian professional who was expected to act “with
vigor” (Wilson, 1887), in Weberian
bureaucracy, rules governed behavior and regulations guided all
actions. Routine meant
applying the rule to the case. The bureaucratic personality type
was that of an ethically neutral,
rationalistic expert, incapable of emotion and devoid of will,
who was supposed to act “without
sympathy or enthusiasm” (Thompson, 1975). Thus, ethical
administration was tantamount to
following orders of legitimate organizational superiors in the

most efficient way possible.
The rise of the welfare state after the Great Depression and
WWII had its serious
implications for the theory and practice of public
administration. The Wilsonian politics-admin-
istration dichotomy, which reigned supreme as the dogma of the
field in the preceding decades,
lost its viability by the end of WWII. It was found impossible to
rationalize government
processes simply by applying business principles. Government,
after all, cannot be run like a
business (Appleby, 1959/2007; Dahl, 1947; Waldo, 1948/2007).
This new reality required more
use of administrative judgment in decision-making.
Accordingly, scholars started to
acknowledge the problems of morality that press hard upon
individual public administrators,
emphasizing the rudimentary awareness of those administrators
of their public responsibilities
(Appleby, 1959/2007; Bailey, 1964).
Intellectual debates in mid-century contributed to the ethical
development in public admin-
istration. Two remarkable debates are the Finer-Friedrich debate
of the early 1940s (Finer,
1941; Friedrich, 1940) and the Simon-Waldo debate of the late
1940s. The Finer-Friedrich
debate summarized the ethical discourse on what promotes
administrative responsibility and
moral behavior. The Simon-Waldo debate was mainly over the
fact-value distinction and the
role and purpose of the practice and study of public
administration. In short, Waldo (1948/
2007) disputed Herbert Simon (1947)’s belief in efficiency as
the central concept in the field

of administrative science on the ground that efficiency is not a
value-neutral concept. In his
Administrative State, Waldo argues that administrative study is
concerned “with thinking and
valuing,” where “valuing implies morality” (Waldo, 1948/2007,
p. 171). Furthermore, Waldo
regarded the belief in efficiency as a value-neutral concept as “a
major obstacle to the develop-
ment of democratic administration” (Waldo, 1948/2007, p. 171).
It is worth noting that Waldo is
a key figure in public administration’s continuing quest for an
intellectual identity and the pre-
cursor of the New Public Administration movement in the late
1960s.
Despite the shift in public administration scholarship, efforts to
rationalize public
administration did not stop. The rise of the welfare state and the
unprecedented growth in
government spending necessitated the introduction of new
strategies to control costs and
improve performance. This propagated the use of generic
management methods, such as
strategic planning, systems-based approaches, and the
application of metrics to administration
and budgeting. However, most of these rationalization efforts
were short-lived.
ETHICS IN AMERICAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 461
The Civil Rights Era (1960s–Early 1970s)
In the 1960s, the American society dramatically changed and
became increasingly more

complicated. The federal government expanded, accordingly, in
size and expenditures. While
liberals may view this expansion as a necessity to meet the
demands of the changing society,
conservatives would regard this growth as unnecessary. The
aftermath of the Civil Rights
Movement brought democratic principles to the scene which
conflict with, and even
contradict, the rationalization of public administration.
Accordingly, the principle of standar-
dization of service provision that served the society so well in
the past had difficulty
responding to “a diverse citizenry and its differential needs and
preferences,” thus contradict-
ing the democratic principles of fairness and social equity, and
begging the question “when
should we treat people differently to be fair and when must we
treat them the same?”
(Cooper, 2004, p. 403). While the principle of standardization
sought to assure that all people
are provided with the same services on equal basis, the principle
of social equity requires that
the services be tailored to meet the needs of the different
segments of society. An example
would be providing handicapped with special services including
parking spaces and other
accommodations.
As such, changes that took place in the societal and legal
environment of public
organizations rendered the concept of the ethically neutral
bureaucrat, who was supposed to
provide standardized services to all the constituents of society,
obsolete. Bureaucracy came
under fire for being too large, inefficient, rigid, and
unresponsive to changes in its environment.

Both Public Administration and business scholars started to
denounce bureaucracy (Downs,
1967) and foretell its impending death (Bennis, 1965, 1966,
1967a, 1967b/2007; Bennis &
Slater, 1968; G. Frederickson, (1971/2007). Hence, de-
bureaucratization was proposed in the
1960s and the 1970s, mainly by the advocates of New Public
Administration (NPA), not as
a way to rationalize government, but as a means to make
government “more equitable and more
responsive” (Cooper, 2004; G. Frederickson, 1971/2007; H.G.
Frederickson, 1990, 1993, 1997;
Menzel, 2003) to the increasing and diverse demands of society.
It was the NPA that brought ethics into the scene to become the
heart of public administra-
tion (H.G. Frederickson, 1993, 1997). NPA scholars drove home
the importance of social equity
and the inescapable fact of administrative discretion, which
broke open the old assumption
about simple obedience to orders imposed from above in the
bureaucracy. It was a result of this
NPA perspective that the field of administrative ethics emerged
in the 1970s and with it the
need for teaching morality in public administration schools
(Rohr, 1978; Wakefield, 1976).
With NPA, stewardship has become the spirit of the day, as
NPA scholars attempted to establish
a moral base for public administration by injecting new values
of equity, civic virtue, and
benevolence into the field (H.G. Frederickson, 1993, 1997).
The Post-Watergate Era (Mid-1970s–1980s)
The Watergate scandal opened a new chapter in American
public administration, bringing

public service ethics to the forefront. Both elite and popular
consensus agreed that something
had to be done to restore trust in government. Several efforts
were taken to foster ethical
conduct in the public service. In 1978, the Ethics in
Government Act was signed into law by
President Carter in an attempt to commit federal employees to
moral standards of behavior that
are required and expected of public officials.
In 1984, the American Society for Public Administration
(ASPA) adopted an ethics code
designed to promote the public service as an honorable
profession. A few years later, the
teaching of ethics found a niche in public administration/affairs
schools, with the National
Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration
(NASPAA) incorporating new
language into its curriculum standards, urging public
administration programs to “enhance
the student’s values, knowledge, and skills to act ethically and
effectively” (cited in Menzel,
1997, p. 225).
This initiative came in response to the recognition by several
scholars of the importance of
teaching ethics in schools of public administration to prepare
students and practitioners of
public administration to assume their role in government (Rohr,
1978; Wakefield, 1976). This
recognition is based on the assertion that public officials are not

neutral individuals who are
supposed to carry out unquestioningly the orders of their
superiors and blindly to apply the
policies of the organizations they serve; they are rather moral
subjects, who are supposed to
exercise independent moral judgment (Rohr, 1978; Thompson,
1985).
The 1980s marked the beginning of a new rationalization wave
that accompanied the
sweeping changes in the political and economic arena. Efforts
associated with this wave aimed
at reducing the size of government, improving productivity,
cutting costs, and promoting
efficiency and service provision. Privatization, outsourcing, and
contracting out government
services became the new currency.
Several strategies for improving performance were adopted
between the 1970s and the late
1980s, varying between quality improvement, privatization,
outsourcing, and total quality
management. Nevertheless, none of these strategies were proven
effective in improving
government performance, and government continued to be
criticized for being too big, too
bloated, inefficient, and unproductive (Osborne & Gaebler,
1992).
The Reinventing Government Era (1990s–2000)
Efforts to rationalize government continued vigorously in the
1990s. Improving governance has
become the motto for every government ever since 1992. The
new paradigms of Reinventing
Government (Gore, 1993) and New Public Management (Light,

1997; Osborne & Gaebler,
1992; Ott & Goodman, 1998; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000) sought
to introduce private sector
values, techniques, and practices into the public sector in an
attempt to improve public service
performance and to restore public trust in government. As such,
the businesslike model
emphasizes efficiency, productivity, high performance,
customer service, improved capacity,
and accountability for results, as a remedy to the ills of
government (Barzelay, 1992; Gore,
1993; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992).
Efforts to rationalize government under NPM brought back
performance and efficiency to
the forefront, while at the same time sought to promote
transparency and to improve trust in
government. However, efficiency under the NPM model goes
beyond our understanding of
efficiency in traditional public administration. Traditionally,
efficiency, as the relationship
between production inputs and outputs, was mainly used to
eliminate waste and improve central
control over the administrative machinery, efficiency under
NPM relates to cost effectiveness
and maximization of outputs over inputs, which can be achieved
by changing how public ser-
vices are delivered (Hood, 1991; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992).
Under the new businesslike model,
“performance” and “results” gained currency in public
organizations. Improving performance

has become the primary remedy to the “performance deficit”
that government was believed
to suffer from (Behn, 2003; Kamensky, 1996; Moynihan &
Pandey, 2010). To this end,
objective measures of organizational and individual
performance have been introduced into
federal, state, and local governments to track and measure the
extent to which public
organizations are achieving their desired objectives (Brudney,
Hebert, & Wright, 1999; Kearney
& Berman, 1999).
In short, the new market model perceives public organizations
as business corporations run
by entrepreneurs, whereby officials are supposed to respond to
performance targets set by
managers (Hood, 1991). This model promised to enhance
transparency, promote accountability,
and increase flexibility by reducing planning, regulations, and
procedures.
With its emphasis on transparency and accountability, NPM is
thought to give ethics in
public organizations a due regard (Christensen & Laegreid,
2001; Pollitt & Bouckaert,
2000). Opponents of NPM (G. Frederickson & Ghere, 2013; H.
G. Frederickson, 1993,
1996, 1999; Gilman, 1999). However, the entrepreneurial model
(Osborne & Gaebler, 1992)
raised a number of ethical concerns that might undermine the
public ethos by sacrificing the
democratic norms of equity and by making the incidences of
unethical behavior more likely
to occur (G.Frederickson & Ghere, 2013; Kolthoff, Huberts, &
Van den Heuvel, 2006).
Proponents, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of

“evidence-based ethical perfor-
mance regimes” as “part of NPM discourse” (Lawton, 2008, p.
53). These regimes focus on
codes of conducts for public officials as well as contractors,
protocols for procurement, ethical
training, and transparency in decision making (Lawton, 2008).
Hood (1991, p. 15) argues that
broadly speaking, NPM “assumes a culture of public service
honesty as given. Its recipes, to
some degree, removed devices instituted to ensure honesty and
neutrality in the public service
in the past (fixed salaries rules of procedures, permanence of
tenure, etc.).”
The Current Era: The New Governance
In the past two decades, a new form of governance has emerged
simultaneously to NPM, repre-
senting a paradigm shift “from hierarchy to hierarchy”
(O’Leary, 2015)—from traditional
bureaucracies to network arrangements—in policymaking and
service delivery (H.G. Frederick-
son, 2004; Kettl, 1993; O’Toole, 1997a, 1997b; Rhodes, 1994,
1996, 1997; Salamon, 2002;
Sørensen, 2002). Hence, most of public services that were
solely provided by government
are now provided by network arrangements that cut across
public, private, and nonprofit sectors,
in which nongovernmental and quasi-governmental entities
became equally responsible for
policy outcomes and service delivery (Ansell & Gash, 2008;
Rhodes, 1994, 1996, 1997). In this
sense, the new governance denotes a change not only in the
meaning and the traditional bound-
aries of government, but also in the manner by which society is
being governed (Stoker, 1998).

Public Administration scholars variously refer to this “newly
emerging paradigm in public
administration” (H.G. Frederickson, 2004, p. 5) as the “new
governance” (Osborne, 2006),
“governing without government” (Peters & Pierre, 1998;
Rhodes, 1994, 1996, 1997), “the
hollow state” (Milward & Provan, 2003; Peters, 1994; Rhodes,
1994), “third-party government”
(Salamon, 2002), “collaborative public management” (Agranoff,
2006; Agranoff & McGuire,
2001, 2003; McGuire, 2006; McGuire, & Agranoff, 2001), and
“self-organizing and
interdependent networks” (O’Toole, 1997a, 1997b), which are
alternatives rather than a hybrid
of markets and traditional hierarchies (Osborne, 2006; O’Toole,
1997a; Rhodes, 1996). Under
these arrangements, government still relies on outside agencies,
but now under the form of
stronger partners rather than contractors (Considine & Lewis,
2003).
This new paradigm has emerged as “an innovative response”
(Keast, Mandell, Brown, &
Woolcock, 2004) to meet the pressing and growing demands of
society. As such, network
arrangements were developed as arenas for collaboration, where
private, public, nonprofit,
voluntary organizations, as well as the citizenry come together
and coordinate efforts and
resources to find solutions to societal problems that “cannot be

achieved—or achieved easily
—by a single organization” (McGuire, 2006, p. 33). The
ultimate objectives of these networks
are to improve government performance in terms of both policy
outcomes and service delivery,
to restore trust in government, and to make government more
responsive to the needs of its
constituents.
Some scholars fear that network arrangements, because of their
self-governing nature, may
deviate from the public service ethos (Rhodes, 1994, 1996,
1997). Other scholars, however, see
the emergence of a new public service ethos, resulting from the
strategic interaction between
public, private, and nonprofit sectors that synthetically blends
together elements of both the
traditional PA ethos and the entrepreneurial ethos of NPM
(Osborne, 2006; Stoker, 2006).
The concept of the New Public Service (NPS) was advanced by
Denhardt and Denhardt
(2000), who viewed NPS as “a movement built on work in
democratic citizenship, community
and civil society, and organizational humanism and discourse
theory” (p. 549). Central to the
NPS is the primary role played by the public servant in helping
citizens articulate and meet their
shared interests rather than attempting to control or steer
society (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000,
p. 549).
The new public service ethos is rooted in both public sector
virtues of honesty, integrity,
impartiality, and community service, and in private sector
entrepreneurial values of compe-

tition, performance, customer satisfaction, consumer choice,
and flexibility (Stoker, 1998). In
this sense, substituting horizontal network structures for
traditional hierarchies should not be
understood as a departure from the traditional virtues of
integrity, liberty, fairness, and equity
that form the bedrock of democratic governance.
Aldridge and Stoker (2002) identify five elements that
characterize the new public service
ethos: Performance culture, commitment to accountability, a
capacity to support universal
access,, responsible employment practices, and contribution to
the community well-being.
Rhodes (1997) refers to adaptability and flexibility as key
virtues of the new governance. Alter
and Hage (1993) emphasize adaptive efficiency to indicate the
interorganizational adaptation
associated with “quality, flexibility, and innovativeness” (p.
39). Likewise, Bardach (1998,
p. 232) points out to a “culture of a joint-problem solving” that
reflects “an ethos that values
equality, adaptability, discretion, and results.” This ethos also
aims to overcome hierarchy,
stability, obedience, procedures.
Similarly, trust among stakeholders is an ethical value that is of
paramount importance to the
proper functioning of collaborative arrangements (Klijn,
Edelenbos, & Steijin, 2010). In this
sense, collaboration is more about enhancing trust than about
reaching an agreement. Trust
facilitates learning, information sharing, and the development of
social capital. Accountability

is another moral value in the new governance. However, it goes
beyond the vertical
accountability in traditional hierarchies. In network governance,
accountability has a strategic
orientation. It is more about managing expectations than about
answerability (Acar, Guo, &
Yang, 2008).
Table 1 summarizes the evolution of ethics in American public
administration since the
inception of the field. As depicted in Table 1, each era brought
along with it new values to
be adhered to in addition to the already existing values.
However, the values that were
maintained across the different eras (whether moral or not) were
not static themselves. For
instance, efficiency is a value cherished by all eras; however in
each era, it has a different
connotation. In the Progressive era, efficiency had a moral
implication, as it was thought of
as a means to reduce waste and eliminate corruption. In the New
Deal era, efficiency acquired
a managerial aspect: it was pursued as a means to control the
federal bureaucracy. Under NPA
in the 1960s and 1970s, social equity was advocated as a
normative value and a new pillar in
public administration (G. Frederickson, 1971/2007; H.G.
Frederickson, 1990, 1993). Social and
economic conditions necessitated more than technical and
allocative efficiency. Distributive
efficiency was a need to ensure that resources were allocated in
a way to provide services that
meet the needs of a diverse population. With the NPM,

allocative and technical efficiency
were brought back to the forefront, but this time as a means to
maximize outputs and improve
performance. Under the New Governance, efficiency acquired a
broader connotation. It
now relates to interorganizational adaptation associated with
“quality, flexibility, and
innovativeness” (Bardach, 1998, p. 39).
ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY
The world has entered a new millennium that can be best
characterized as the age of
globalization and rapid changes. This new reality has
transformed and integrated societies,
economies, and governments into a “global society,” and
brought along with it new challenges
that require public managers as well as employees to frequently
use their ethical judgement.
This article highlights three of these ethical challenges: (1) the
increased use of electronic
surveillance, (2) illegal immigration, and (3) climate change.
The first issue addresses
the employer-employee relationship. The second addresses
community, by highlighting the
relationship between administration and those it serves. The
third addresses sustainability,
by emphasizing the relationship between administration and
humanity as a whole. Figure 1
illustrates the three dimensions of ethics that these challenges
necessitate.
Perhaps, the most remarkable change that societies around the
globe have been witnessing in
the past few decades is the widespread use of information and

computer technologies (ICTs)
that revolutionized our ways of interaction and communication.
This technological revolution
—or what Luciano Floridi (2014) calls the “Fourth
Revolution”—has ushered an unparalleled
era in history—an era of boundless change, mobility, and
possibilities for both individuals and
organizations (Hijal-Moghrabi & Sabharwal, 2017). The use of
ICTs has dramatically changed
the way by which governments and their employees work, and
presented both opportunities and
ethical challenges to public organizations.
Related to the widespread use of ICTs in the workplace is the
idea of electronic surveillance.
As defined by West and Bowman, surveillance at work refers to
the “use of electronic
T
A
B
L
E
1
T
h
e

E
vo
lu
tio
n
o
f
E
th
ic
s
in
P
u
b
lic
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
tio

n
H
is
to
ri
ca
l
er
a
P
re
d
o
m
in
a
n
t
sc
h
o
o

l
o
f
th
o
u
g
h
t
P
re
va
il
in
g
e
th
o
s
D
ic
ta
ti
n

g
va
lu
es
E
n
vi
ro
n
m
en
ta
l
fo
rc
es
A
ct
io
n
s

P
ro
gr
es
si
ve
E
ra
(
la
te
ni
ne
te
en
th
–e
ar
ly
t
w
en

ti
et
h
ce
nt
ur
y)
T
ay
lo
ri
sm
M
an
ag
er
ia
li
sm
W
il

so
ni
an
/M
an
ag
er
ia
l
et
ho
s
E
ff
ic
ie
nc
y
E
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne

ss
E
co
no
m
y
O
be
di
en
ce
t
o
su
pe
ri
or
s
F
ig
ht
in
g
co

rr
up
ti
on
,
w
as
te
,
an
d
fa
vo
ri
ti
sm
B
ui
ld
in
g
ad
m
in

is
tr
at
iv
e
m
ac
hi
ne
ry
M
er
it
S
ys
te
m
m
ak
in
g
go
ve

rn
m
en
t
ru
n
li
ke
a
bu
si
ne
ss
P
O
S
D
C
O
R
B
N

ew
D
ea
l
E
ra
a
nd
P
os
t–
W
II
E
ra
(
19
30
s–
19
50
s)

M
an
ag
er
ia
li
sm
W
eb
er
ia
n
bu
re
au
cr
ac
y
B
ur
ea
uc
ra

ti
c
et
ho
s
E
ff
ic
ie
nc
y
E
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
E
co
no
m
y
O

be
di
en
ce
t
o
hi
er
ar
ch
ic
al
au
th
or
it
y
V
er
ti
ca
l
ac

co
un
ta
bi
li
ty
P
ro
ce
du
ra
l
in
te
gr
it
y
S
ta
nd
ar
di
za
ti

on
E
xp
an
di
ng
go
ve
rn
m
en
t
m
ac
hi
ne
ry
W
el
fa
re

S
ta
te
W
W
II
P
O
S
D
C
O
R
B
C
en
tr
al
iz
at
io
n
of
s

er
vi
ce
s
C
om
pl
ia
nc
e
to
ru
le
s
an
d
re
gu
la
ti
on
s
P

er
fo
rm
an
ce
m
et
ri
cs
C
iv
il
R
ig
ht
s
an
d
P
os
t-
W

at
er
ga
te
E
ra
(
19
60
s–
19
80
s)
N
ew
P
ub
li
c
A
dm
in

is
tr
at
io
n
D
em
oc
ra
ti
c
et
ho
s
E
ff
ic
ie
nc
y
E
ff
ec
ti

ve
ne
ss
E
co
no
m
y
V
er
ti
ca
l
ac
co
un
ta
bi
li
ty
S
oc
ia

l
eq
ui
ty
R
es
po
ns
iv
en
es
s
F
ai
rn
es
s
D
is
tr
ib
ut
iv

e
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
M
or
al
c
ha
ra
ct
er
(
ho
ne
st
y,
in
te
gr

it
y,
s
er
vi
ng
t
he
co
m
m
un
it
y)
C
iv
il
R
ig
ht
s
m

ov
em
en
t
C
ha
ng
es
in
t
he
e
nv
ir
on
m
en
t
E
th
ic
al
l

ap
se
s
an
d
sc
an
da
ls
A
S
P
A
c
od
e
of
e
th
ic
s
N
A

S
P
A
A
g
ui
de
li
ne
s
T
ea
ch
in
g
et
hi
cs
f
or
bu
re
au

cr
at
s
R
ei
nv
en
ti
ng
G
ov
er
nm
en
t
E
ra
(1
99
0s
–p
re
se

nt
)
N
ew
P
ub
li
c
M
an
ag
em
en
t
E
nt
re
pr
en
eu
ri
al
e
th

os
E
ff
ic
ie
nc
y
E
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
E
co
no
m
y
T
ra
ns
pa

re
nc
y
A
cc
ou
nt
ab
il
it
y
fo
r
re
su
lt
s
D
is
tr
us
t
in

go
ve
rn
m
en
t
P
er
fo
rm
an
ce
d
ef
ic
it
(C
o
n
ti
n
u
ed

)
467
T
A
B
L
E
1
C
o
n
tin
u
e
d
H
is
to
ri
ca
l

er
a
P
re
d
o
m
in
a
n
t
sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
th
o
u
g
h

t
P
re
va
il
in
g
e
th
o
s
D
ic
ta
ti
n
g
va
lu
es
E
n

vi
ro
n
m
en
ta
l
fo
rc
es
A
ct
io
n
s
C
us
to
m
er
s
at
is

fa
ct
io
n
F
le
xi
bi
li
ty
M
ak
in
g
go
ve
rn
m
en
t
ru
n
li

ke
a
bu
si
ne
ss
D
ec
en
tr
al
iz
at
io
n
P
ri
va
ti
za
ti
on
/C

on
tr
ac
ti
ng
ou
t
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
M
an
ag
em
en
t
E
th
ic

s
m
an
ag
em
en
t
an
d
tr
ai
ni
ng
T
he
N
ew
G
ov
er
na
nc
e

N
ew
G
ov
er
na
nc
e
N
ew
P
ub
li
c
S
er
vi
ce
et
ho
s
E
ff

ic
ie
nc
y
E
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
E
co
no
m
y
T
ra
ns
pa
re
nc
y
F

le
xi
bi
li
ty
A
da
pt
iv
e
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
In
no
va
ti
ve
ne
ss

H
or
iz
on
ta
l
A
cc
ou
nt
ab
il
it
y
S
oc
ia
l
re
sp
on
si
ve
ne

ss
M
or
al
C
ha
ra
ct
er
(
ho
ne
st
y,
in
te
gr
it
y,
s
er
vi

ng
t
he
co
m
m
un
it
y)
T
ru
st
w
it
hi
n
an
d
ou
ts
id
e
ne

tw
or
ks
S
oc
ia
l
C
ap
it
al
F
ea
r
of
r
eo
cc
ur
re
nc
e

of
e
th
ic
al
l
ap
se
s
an
d
in
st
an
ce
s
of
un
fa
ir
ne
ss
P

eo
pl
e
w
an
t
to
h
av
e
m
or
e
sa
y
in
t
he
p
ro
vi
si
on

of
s
er
vi
ce
s
R
ec
on
ci
li
ng
e
nt
re
pr
en
eu
rs
hi
p
an
d
st

ew
ar
ds
hi
p
C
iv
ic
en
ga
ge
m
en
t
E
th
ic
s
M
an
ag
em
en

t
an
d
tr
ai
ni
ng
468
technology to instantaneously and continuously collect, store,
and report the behavior of
employees” (West & Bowman, 2016, p. 629). Surveillance
technologies comprise computer
log-in and activity reports, entry card swipes, video recording
of staff comings and goings,
and printer and photocopy details. They also include
fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris
scans, as well as smart cards that are used to control access to
facilities (West & Bowman,
2016, p. 630).
Proponents of electronic surveillance perceive this type of
surveillance as a means to gather
information about employees’ work capacity and performance.
They further argue that organi-
zations have a valid reason to monitor and track employees in
the workplace in an attempt to
curtail theft, protect secrets, control costs, reduce absenteeism,

maintain workplace safety,
ensure security, and avoid information leaks (Mujtaba, 2003;
Sarpong & Rees, 2014; West
& Bowman, 2016).
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that monitoring and
surveillance make employees in
the work place more visible, traceable, and vulnerable, and may
further upset the
employer-employee relationship by giving more power to
employers at the expense of the
employee (Vorvoreanu & Botan, 2000). Opponents also argue
that tracking employees’ data
and activities may pose legal and ethical concerns for
employees. They see monitoring as an
invasion to privacy, conceiving of privacy as a basic moral right
and as an important social issue
(Alder, Schminke, Noel, & Kuenzi, 2008, Martin & Freeman,
2003).
The challenge is how to balance conflicting values of efficiency
gain, fairness, privacy, and
cost-effectiveness—how to enhance transparency without
violating privacy, and provide legal
protections to assure fair treatment to employees within public
organizations. This is
FIGURE 1 Dimensions of ethical challenges.
particularly true in at-will state agencies where employees can
be terminated for any reason, no
matter how trivial it is (West & Bowman, 2016).

By the same token, electronic surveillance raises ethical
concerns about the use and
dissemination of employees’ information, also referred to as
information ethics. Because “data
are leaky, and they escape in unexpected ways, be it through
errors, hacks, or whistle-blowing”
(Boyd & Crawford, 2012, p. 1666), protecting employees’
information is of paramount concern.
Any routine mishap of information may result in unintended
consequences and misguided
decisions that would negatively affect not only the employer-
employee relationship, but also
the organization as a whole (Rosenberg, 2010).
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigration is one of the more divisive issues facing
American society today. The auth-
ority to regulate immigration is initially the jurisdiction of the
federal government. However,
after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the federal government
required state and local governments
to assist with the enforcement of federal immigration law.
While many states and localities
show the willingness to cooperate, many cities and local
governments refused to assist, by
adopting instead what is known as sanctuary or noncooperation
policies (Bilke, 2009).
Through executive orders, departmental policies, local
resolutions, or city ordinances, these
sanctuary cities, generally, forbid local law enforcement
officers to inquire about immigration
status or report illegal immigrants to federal authorities, except
in the case of serious offenses

(Bilke, 2009, p. 65). Many of these cities went to the extent to
provide illegal aliens within their
jurisdictions with local membership (including a municipal
identification card) and the right to
participate in local communities (Villazor, 2010).
Proponents of sanctuary cities and open border policies argue
that sanctuary laws or ordi-
nances seek to maintain community bonds and family unity, as
well as they aim to protect
all members within their respective communities. Opponents, on
the other hand, fear that
sanctuary cities become a safe haven for undocumented
immigrants who are also criminals,
who may flock to these cities because they trust that they will
be neither reported to federal
authorities nor deported for entering the country illegally. What
makes things worse is that
many juvenile defendants are released without notifying federal
law enforcement. For instance,
in 2008, as many as 185 youths who were engaged in serious
drug-related crimes were shielded
under the San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy (Villazor,
2010).
Sanctuary laws and ordinances not only put sanctuary local
governments in confrontation
with the federal government and with their respective states to a
lesser extent, but they also raise
ethical and moral concerns. These cities tend to protect illegal
immigrants and provide them
with local benefits and privileges at the expense of the rights
and life of local citizens/taxpayers.
In the famous case of the Bologna family, the City of San
Francisco failed to protect its citizens
from an undocumented immigrant who was also a criminal. In

this incident, which took place in
2008, an illegal immigrant, Edwin Ramos, who is allegedly a
member of the dangerous Mare
Salvatrucha, or “MS-13” gang, shot to death Anthony Bologna
and two of his three sons
(Villazor, 2010).
The ethics in question, here, is that of community ethics, which
emphasizes the trustworthy
relationship between local governments and the community they
are supposed to serve. Local
government employees, in general, and law enforcement
officers, in particular, represent the
interests of their constituents and, hence, have an ethical
obligation not only to serve but also
to protect and care about their local citizens.
Climate Change
Climate change is one of the most critical problems facing not
only the United States, but the
world in general as well. Climate change is a great threat to
people and the ecological systems
on which they depend (Dunlap & Brulle, 2015). For the past
three years, opponents of climate
change policies, as championed by fossil fuel companies,
businesses, and free-market
fundamentalists, have been successful in preventing government
action on climate change
by framing the debate in a way that emphasized the economy
(high cost, loss of jobs,

decrease in GDP, etc.) while ignoring the moral issues that
emanate from it. The debate
around climate change would be radically transformed if it were
perceived and framed as
a moral problem.
In this sense, high-emitting nations (including the United
States) have a moral obligation to
nations and people most vulnerable to climate change impact—
that is, they have an obligation
not to cause harm to health and ecosystems (Jorgenson, Schor,
Knight, & Huang, 2016) Hence,
the U.S. federal, state, and local governments, as well as
businesses and corporations that emit
high levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) are required to reduce
these to a safer volume within the
global emissions context.
Public administrators at all levels of government, more
specifically at the local level, have an
ethical responsibility, not only toward their immediate
community, but also toward the global
community as a whole. When carrying out environmental
policies, they should weigh their
actions and decisions taking into account the possible harm that
may result from these actions
or decisions. Likewise, public managers and employees, at the
local level have a further duty to
raise awareness and help educate civil society and businesses
about the urgent need to decrease
GHG emissions.
On June 1, 2017, President Trump took the decision to withdraw
from the Paris climate
agreement. While some elected officials applauded this
decision, others (including governors

and mayors of large cities) vowed to pursue climate policies
without the federal government.
(Popovich & Schlossberg, 2017). Although these local actions
may put these local governments
in confrontation with the federal government and their
respective states if they are supportive of
federal environmental policies, they could be perceived as
ethical/moral. The moral question
here highlights the relationship between governments and
humanity as a whole, not only the
immediate community. The ethics in question is that of
sustainability, which highlights moral
obligations to future generations with respect to the
environment.
In short, the new reality brought about by globalization and
rapid change implies that the
traditional role of public managers, despite its importance, is
not enough to meet the challenges
the new age calls for. Public mangers do not act or behave in
isolation of their environment,
whether internal/organizational or local and global environment.
Public mangers, today, should
think locally, but act globally. When carrying out policies or
making decisions, they should take
into account the possible impact and consequences of their
actions and decisions on both the
micro and the macro level. This, ultimately, necessitates that
public administrators develop
new sets of knowledge, skills, and culture; assume new
responsibilities; and uphold ethical/

moral values that the new age necessitates.
MANAGING ETHICS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY:
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC
MANAGERS
In today’s turbulent world, ethical issues exist in a complex
environment with conflicting
ideas and unclear rules. Ethics and issues of “right” and
“wrong” have been concerns of
society for as long as societies have existed. Public
administrators are faced with difficult
choices every day, concerning ethical decisions. Ethical
considerations are paramount to
public administrators since they exercise great discretion in
influencing and implementing
policy decisions that either benefit or harm impacted parties. As
such, ethically mature
organizations embrace ethics as a routine obligation of the
organization. Promoting and
sustaining ethical cultures in which ethical attitudes, ethical
behaviors, and ethical conducts
are the norm is the responsibility of every public manager,
whether in a traditional hierarchy
or in the heterarchy of the New Governance.
In the past few decades, there has been an increased interest in
ethics management as a
means to promote more ethical organizations (Lawton, 1998;
Maesschalck, 2004; Menzel,
2012; Petrick & Quinn, 1997). This need has emerged partly in
response to the NPM reforms
that emphasize competition and entrepreneurship, and partly in
response to changes in societal
values. Citizens, today, want more say in the provision of public
services and a horizontal,

rather than vertical, form of accountability (Maesschalck,
2004).
Ethics management, whether in terms of compliance or
integrity, is the responsibility of
every manager. Ethics management distinguishes between two
approaches to promote ethics
in organizational settings: compliance and integrity—also
referred to as the “low road” and
the “high road” approaches (Rohr, 1978). This distinction
originates from the Finer-Friedrich
debate in the 1940s, with compliance emphasizing external
control as a means to promote
employee ethical behavior, and with integrity underscoring
internal control as reflected in
moral judgment and moral character. These two approaches do
not—and should not be
regarded—as a dichotomy. Both should be taken into
consideration in managing ethics in
public organizations (Cooper, 2012). Compliance can be
achieved either through ethics train-
ing, also referred to as compliance and value-oriented ethics
programs (Weaver & Treviño,
1999; West, Berman, West, & Berman, 2004), or through the
adoption of a code of ethics,
identifying legal and illegal actions, ethical and unethical
conducts, and appropriate and
inappropriate behaviors. Integrity, on the other hand, can be
enhanced through
integrity training, which is often conceived of as a promising
tool to promote employees’
integrity in public as well as private organizations.
Scandals and high profile cases of corruption often disgust
citizens toward the public
sector. Adhering to ethical codes and providing training on a

regular basis is necessary
(Bowman & Knox, 2008). If organizations are expected to act
ethically, ethical values have
to be part and parcel of the organizational culture (Cayer &
Sabharwal, 2016). After all,
promoting greater integrity in the public service restores trust in
government which, in turn,
enhances administrative capacity (Denhardt, 2002) and,
ultimately, improves organizational
performance.
CONCLUSION
This study tracks the evolution of ethics in American public
administration since the inception
of the field in the Progressive Era to the current era of the new
governance. This evolution
shows that public administrative ethics, as Cooper (2001)
contends, has demonstrated its
sustainability and centrality to the field of public
administration. This article argues that
administrative ethics has not been static. It has been shaped by
several environmental factors
that guided its governing values. However, it has evolved not by
omission but by addition.
Looking at the ethics of the present, today, we can discern
different, even conflicting, ethical
values that have been cherished by traditional public
administration and NPM, coexisting side
by side. This denotes the continuity of ethics in public
administration.

In short, different types of ethics have existed and continue to
exist alongside each other for
at least some period. For example, the so-called
Weberian/traditional ethics was not over when
NPM arrived, and traditional hierarchy has not been completely
replaced by new governance
heterarchy. All this leads us to conclude that administrative
ethics is not a passing fad. Dwight
Waldo observed several decades ago that public administration
will continue to play an
important role, whether directly or indirectly. It will continue to
reflect the state of the art, even
if that art changes. Administrative ethics, being the heart of
public administration, will continue
to reflect the changing reality of that art.
ORCID
Imane Hijal-Moghrabi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8765-491X
Meghna Sabharwal http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1294-559X
REFERENCES
Acar, M., Guo, C., & Yang, K. (2008). Accountability when
hierarchical authority is absent: Views from public private
partnership practitioners. American Review of Public
Administration, 38(1), 3–23. doi:10.1177/0275074007299481.
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons
for public managers. Public Administration Review,
66(s1), 56–65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public
network management research. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326.
doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public
management: New strategies for local governments.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
doi:10.2307/j.ctt2tt2nq.
Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., Noel, T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008).
Employee reactions to internet monitoring: The
moderating role of ethical orientation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 80(3), 481–498. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-
9432-2.
Aldridge, R., & Stoker, G. (2002). Advancing a new public
service ethos. London, UK: New Local Government Net-
work. Retrieved from
http://www.nlgn.org.uk/pdfs/upload/Advancing%20a%20New%
20Public%20Service%
20Ethos.pdf
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in
theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Appleby, P. H. (1959/2007). Government is different. In J. M.
Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public
administration (6th ed., pp. 119–123). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8765-491X
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1294-559X

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074007299481
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2tt2nq
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9432-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9432-2
20Public%20Service%20Ethos.pdf
20Public%20Service%20Ethos.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Bailey, S. K. (1964). Ethics and the public service. Public
Administration Review, 24(4), 234–243. doi:10.2307/973314.
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The
practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washing-
ton, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/72126609/getting-agencies-
to-work-together-the-practice-and
Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new
vision for managing in government. Berkley, CA:
University of California Press.
Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different
purposes require different measures. Public Administration
Review, 63(5), 586–606. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00322.
Bennis, W. (1965). Beyond bureaucracy. Society, 2(5), 31–35.
doi:10.1007/bf02806136.
Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 2(3), 247–263. doi:10.1177/
002188636600200301.

Bennis, W. (1967a). The coming death of bureaucracy. Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 9
(7), 380. Retrieved from
http://journals.lww.com/joem/citation/1967/07000/the_coming_
death_of_bureaucracy.
34.aspx
Bennis, W. (1967b/2007). Organizations of the future. In J. M.
Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public
administration (6th ed., pp. 220–230). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Bennis, W., & Slater, P. (1968). The temporary society. New
York NY: Harper & Row.
Bilke, C. (2009). Divided we stand, united we fall: A public
policy analysis of sanctuary cities’ role in the illegal
immigration debate. Indiana Law Review, 42, 165. Retrieved
from https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/inlawrev/
article/download/3986/3944.
Bowman, J., & Knox, C. (2008). Ethics in government: No
matter how long and dark the night. Public Administration
Review, 68(4), 627–639.
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big
data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and
scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society,
15(5), 662–679. doi:10.1080/
1369118x.2012.678878.
Brudney, J., Hebert, T., & Wright, D. (1999). Reinventing
government in the American states: Measuring and
explaining administrative reform. Public Administration
Review, 59(1), 19–30. doi:10.2307/977476.

Cayer, J., & Sabharwal, S. (2016). Public personnel
administration (6th ed.). San Diego, CA: Birkdale.
Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2001). New public
management: The effects of contractualism and devolution on
political control. Public Management Review, 3(1), 73–94.
doi:10.1080/14719030122006.
Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. (2003). Bureaucracy, network, or
enterprise? Comparing models of governance in
Australia, Britain, the Netherland, and New Zealand. Public
Administration Review, 63(2), 131–140.
doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00274.
Cooper, T. L. (2001). The emergence of administrative ethics as
a field of study in the United States. In T. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Handbook of administrative ethics (pp. 1–36). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from https://www.
taylorfrancis.com/books/9781482290042.
Cooper, T. L. (2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A
need for focused, collaborative effort. Public
Administration Review, 64(4), 395–407.
Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An
approach to ethics for the administrative role. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Dahl, R. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three
problems. Public Administration Review, 7(1), 1–11.
doi:10.2307/972349
Denhardt, R. B. (2002). Trust as capacity: The role of integrity
and responsiveness. Public Organization Review, 2(1),
65–76. doi:10.1023/A:1016027504549.

Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public
service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration
Review, 60(6), 549–559. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00117.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (Eds.). (2015). Climate change
and society: Sociological perspectives. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.001.0001.
Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic
government. Public Administration Review, 1(4),
335–350. doi:10.2307/972907.
Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is
reshaping human reality. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/973314
https://www.questia.com/library/72126609/getting-agencies-to-
work-together-the-practice-and
https://www.questia.com/library/72126609/getting-agencies-to-
work-together-the-practice-and
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02806136
https://doi.org/10.1177/002188636600200301
https://doi.org/10.1177/002188636600200301
death_of_bureaucracy.34.aspx
death_of_bureaucracy.34.aspx

https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/inlawrev/article/download/3
986/3944
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/inlawrev/article/download/3
986/3944
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878
https://doi.org/10.2307/977476
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030122006
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00274
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781482290042
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781482290042
https://doi.org/10.2307/972349
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016027504549
https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00117
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.2307/972907
Frederickson, H. G. (1971/2007). Toward a new public
administration. In J. M. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of
public administration (6th ed., pp. 296–307). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Frederickson, H. G. (Ed.). (1990). Public administration and
social equity. Public Administration Review, 50(2),
228–237. doi:10.2307/976870.
Frederickson, H. G. (Ed.). (1993). Ethics and public
administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. doi:10.4324/
9781315704524.
Frederickson, H. G. (1996). Comparing the reinventing
government movement with the new public administration.
Public Administration Review, 56(3), 263–270.
doi:10.2307/976450.

Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The spirit of public administration.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Frederickson, H. G. (1999). Ethics and the new managerialism.
Public Administration & Management: An Interactive
Journal, 4(2), 299–324. Retrieved from
https://spaef.org/article/1103/Ethics-and-the-New-
Managerialism
Frederickson, H. G., & Ghere, R. (Eds.). (2013). Ethics in
public management. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. doi:10.4324/
9781315704517.
Frederickson, H. G. (2004). Whatever happened to public
administration? Governance, governance, everywhere
(Working Paper QU/GOV/3/2004). Belfast, Ireland: Institute of
Governance, Public Policy and Social Research,
Queen’s University.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.8
624&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of
administrative responsibility. In C. Friedrich (Ed.), Public
policy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilman, S. C. (1999). Public sector ethics and government
reinvention: Realigning systems to meet organizational
change. Public Integrity, 1(2), 175–192.
Goodnow, C. (1900/2007). Politics and administration. In J. M.
Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public
administration (6th ed., pp. 28–30). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gore, A. (1993). From red tape to results: Creating a
government that works better and costs less. Report of the

National Performance Review. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384294.pdf
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science
of administration. New York, NY: Institute of Public
Administration, Columbia University.
doi:10.4324/9780203509241.
Hijal-Moghrabi, I., & Sabharwal, M. (2017). The role of the
information society in promoting a better and a more
democratic governance. Journal of Public Administration and
Governance, 7(4). doi:10.5296/jpag.v7i4.12018.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public
Administration, 69(1), 3–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9299.1991.tb00779.x.
Jorgenson, A. K., Schor, J. B., Knight, K. W., & Huang, X.
(2016). Domestic inequality and carbon emissions in
comparative perspective. Sociological Forum, 31(s1), 770–786.
doi:10.1111/socf.12272.
Kamensky, J. (1996). Role of the “reinventing government”
movement in federal management reform. Public
Kearney, R., & Berman, E. (1999). Public sector performance:
management, motivation, and measurement. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/89759233/public-sector-
performance-
management-motivation
Keast, R., Mandell, M., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004).
Network structures: Working differently and changing

expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363–371.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00380.x.
Kettl, D. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private
markets. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution. Retrievd from
https://www.questia.com/library/7916611/sharing-power-public-
governance-and-
private-markets
Klijn, E., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2010). Trust in
governance networks its impacts on outcomes. Administration &
Society, 4(2), 193–221. doi:10.1177/0095399710362716.
Kolthoff, E., Huberts, L., & Van den Heuvel, H. (2006). The
ethics of new public management: Is integrity at stake?
Public Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 399–439. Retrieved
from https://spaef.org/article/747/The-Ethics-of-New-
Public-Management:-Is-Integrity-at-Stake
Lawton, A. (1998). Ethical management for the public services.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. https://www.
questia.com/library/120073193/ethical-management-for-the-
public-services
Lawton, A. (2008). The language of ethics: Understanding
public service ethics through discourse. Public Integrity,
11(1), 45–62. doi:10.2753/pin1099-9922110103.
Light, P. C. (1997). The tides of reform: Making government
work, 1945-1995. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/976870
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704524

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704524
https://doi.org/10.2307/976450
https://spaef.org/article/1103/Ethics-and-the-New-
Managerialism
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704517
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704517
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.8
624&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384294.pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED384294.pdf
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203509241
https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v7i4.12018
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12272
https://doi.org/10.2307/976448
performance-management-motivation
performance-management-motivation
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00380.x
governance-and-private-markets
governance-and-private-markets
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399710362716
https://spaef.org/article/747/The-Ethics-of-New-Public-
Management:-Is-Integrity-at-Stake
https://spaef.org/article/747/The-Ethics-of-New-Public-
Management:-Is-Integrity-at-Stake
https://www.questia.com/library/120073193/ethical-
management-for-the-public-services
https://www.questia.com/library/120073193/ethical-
management-for-the-public-services
https://doi.org/10.2753/pin1099-9922110103

Maesschalck, J. (2004). Approaches to ethics management in
the public sector: A proposed extension of the
compliance-integrity continuum. Public Integrity, 7(1), 20–41.
doi:10.1080/10999922.2004.11051267.
Martin, K., & Freeman, E. (2003). Some problems with
employee monitoring. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4),
535–361. doi:10.1023/A:1023014112461.
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management:
Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public
Administration Review, 66(s1), 33–43. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00664.x.
McGuire, M.,& Agranoff, R. (2001). American federalism and
the search for models of management. Public
Administration Review, 61(6), 671–681. doi:10.1111/0033-
3352.00138.
Menzel, D. C. (1997). Teaching ethics and values in public
administration: Are we making a difference? Public
Menzel, D. C. (2003). Public administration as a profession:
Where do body and soul reside? Public Integrity, 5(3),
239–249. doi:10.1080/15580989.2003.11770949.
Menzel, D. C. (2012). Ethics management for public
administrators: Leading and building organizations of integrity.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. doi:10.4324/9781315704500.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (2003). Managing the hollow
state collaboration and contracting. Public Management
Review, 5(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/1461667022000028834.

Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2010). The big question for
performance management: Why do managers use
performance information? Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 20(4), 849–866. doi:10.1093/
jopart/muq004.
Mujtaba, B. G. (2003). Ethical implications of employee
monitoring: What leaders should consider. Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 22–47. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3–
1178660591/ethical-implications-of-employee-monitoring-what
O’Leary, R. (2015). From silos to networks. In M. Guy & M.
Rubin (Eds.), Public administration evolving: From foun-
dations to the future (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315718958-13.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government:
How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public
sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/97586920/reinventing-
government-how-the-entrepreneurial-spirit
Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new Public governance? Public
Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. doi:10.1080/
14719030600853022.
O’Toole Jr., L. J. (1997a). Treating networks seriously:
Practical and research-based agendas in public administration.
Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52.
doi:10.2307/976691.
O’Toole Jr., L. J. (1997b). The implications for democracy in a
networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 443–459.

Ott, J. S., & Goodman, D. (1998). Government reform or
alternatives to bureaucracy? Thickening, tides and the future
of governing. Public Administration Review, 58(6), 540–545.
doi:10.2307/977581.
Peters, B. G. (1994). Managing the hollow state. International
Journal of Public Administration, 17(3–4), 739–756.
doi:10.1080/01900699408524915.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without
government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of
public
Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.
Petrick, J. A., & Quinn, J. F. (1997). Management ethics:
Integrity at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform:
A comparative analysis. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. Retrieved from
https://www.questia.com/library/2179787/public-management-
reform-a-comparative-
analysis
Popovich, N., & Schlossberg, T. (2017, June 2). How cities and
states reacted to Trump’s decision to exit the
Paris climate deal. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-
paris-
mayors.html
Rhodes, R. (1994). The hollowing out of the state: The changing
nature of the public service in Britain. Political
Quarterly, 65(2), 138–151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

923x.1994.tb00441.x.
Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: Governing without
government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x.
Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks,
governance, reflexivity and accountability.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Rohr, J. A. (1978). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and
values. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2004.11051267
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023014112461
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00138
https://doi.org/10.2307/976653
https://doi.org/10.1080/15580989.2003.11770949
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704500
https://doi.org/10.1080/1461667022000028834
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3–1178660
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3–1178660
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718958-13
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022

https://doi.org/10.2307/976691
https://doi.org/10.2307/977581
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524915
reform-a-comparative-analysis
reform-a-comparative-analysis
paris-mayors.html
paris-mayors.html
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923x.1994.tb00441.x
Rosenberg, K. (2010). Location surveillance by GPS: Balancing
an employer’s business interest with employee privacy.
Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, 6, 143–154.
Retrieved from https://digital.lib.washington.edu/
dspace-
law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/479/6wjlta143Rosenberg.pdf
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the
new governance. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Sarpong, S., & Rees, D. (2014). Assessing the effects of “big
brother” in a workplace: The case of WAST. European
Management Journal, 32(2), 216–222.
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.06.008.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Sørensen, E. (2002). Democratic theory and network

governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(4), 693–720.
doi:10.1080/10841806.2002.11029383.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions.
International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management a new narrative for
networked governance? American Review of public
Administration, 36(1), 41–57. doi:10.1177/0275074005282583.
Taylor, F. (1912/2007). Scientific management. In J. M.
Shafritz & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration
(6th ed., pp. 36–38). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Thompson, D. F. (1985). The possibility of administrative
ethics. Public Administration Review, 45(5), 555–561.
doi:10.2307/3109930.
Thompson, V. A. (1975). Without sympathy or enthusiasm.
Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Retrieved
from https://www.questia.com/library/72278551/without-
sympathy-or-enthusiasm-the-problem-of-administrative
Villazor, R. C. (2010). “Sanctuary cities” and local citizenship.
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 37, 573. Retrieved from
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2338&
context=ulj
Vorvoreanu, M., & Botan, C. H. (2000, June). Examining
electronic surveillance in the workplace: A review of theor-
etical perspectives and research findings (CERIAS Tech Report
2000-14). Paper Presented at the Conference of the
International Communication Association: “Fifty Years of
Research in Communication, Culture, and Cognition,”A-
capulco, Mexico.. Retrieved from
https://www.cerias.purdue.edu/assets/pdf/bibtex_archive/2000-

14.pdf
Wakefield, S. (1976). Ethics and the public service: A case for
individual responsibility. Public Administration Review,
36(6), 661–666. doi:10.2307/975060.
Waldo, D. (1948/2007). The administrative state. In J. M.
Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration
(6th ed., pp. 138–142). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Weaver, G. R., & Treviño, L. K. (1999). Compliance and values
oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees’
attitudes and behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(2), 315–
335. doi:10.5840/10.2307/3857477.
West, J. P., & Bowman, J. S. (2016). Electronic surveillance at
work: An ethical analysis. Administration & Society, 48
(5), 628–651. doi:10.1177/0095399714556502.
West, J. P., Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Berman, E. M.
(2004). Ethics training in U.S. cities: Content, pedagogy, and
impact. Public Integrity, 6(3), 189–206.
doi:10.1080/10999922.2004.11051253.
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political
Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222. doi:10.2307/2143644.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace-
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.06.008
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2002.11029383
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583

https://doi.org/10.2307/3109930
https://www.questia.com/library/72278551/without-sympathy-
or-enthusiasm-the-problem-of-administrative
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2338&
#x00026;context=ulj
https://www.cerias.purdue.edu/assets/pdf/bibtex_archive/2000-
14.pdf
https://doi.org/10.2307/975060
https://doi.org/10.5840/10.2307/3857477
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714556502
https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2004.11051253
https://doi.org/10.2307/2143644
Copyright of Public Integrity is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
AbstractTHE EVOLUTION OF ETHICS IN AMERICAN
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONThe Progressive Era (Late
Nineteenth–Early Twentieth Century)The New Deal and the
post–WWII Era (1930s–1950s)The Civil Rights Era (1960s–
Early 1970s)The Post-Watergate Era (Mid-1970s–1980s)The
Reinventing Government Era (1990s–2000)The Current Era:
The New GovernanceETHICAL CHALLENGES IN THE
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURYIllegal ImmigrationClimate
ChangeMANAGING ETHICS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY: GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC
MANAGERSCONCLUSIONORCIDREFERENCES
Curriculum and ^?^T tr

/ - i., . Michael
Case Notes coeditors
Submissions to Curriculum and Case Notes should be sent to
Robert A. Leone,
School of Management, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215.
INTEGRATING ETHICS INTO THE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION CURRICULUM:
A THREE-STEP PROCESS
John R. Walton
James M. Stearns
Charles T. Crespy
Abstract
This article provides a three-step process for analyzing public
policy dilemmas
with ethical implications. A framework is proposed that
butMT^n existing
etlucs~tfieories and attempts to provide a relevant, usable
approach for
decisionmaking. A review of current thought in ethics indicates
a concern
for two areas: (a) responsibilities to relevant constituencies; and
(b) adherence
to moral obligations. The framework presented herein directly
addresses both
of these areas of concern. The authors have found this approach
to be useful
for classroom applications. This process is simple to explain,
understand, and
apply to a range of administrative situations. Students find the
framework a

memorable tool, useful in structuring deliberations with ethical
implications.
Sample applications of the framework provide examples for
educators inter-
ested in integrating ethics into their advanced undergraduate
and gradu-
ate courses.
Introductian
Schools of public affairs and public administration are coming
under increas-
ing pressure to integrate discussions of ethics into their
curricula. Just how
to best accomplish this has been the subject of considerable
controversy. This
article describes an analytic approach one of the authors has
used to integrate
an ethical perspective into a graduate policy analysis course.
This experience
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 16, No. 3,
470-483 (1997)
© 1997 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0276-
8739/97/030470-14
Curriculum and Case Notes I 4 7 1
demonstrated that when this approach is used early in the
course, subsequent
discussions are enriched because students acquire skills and
insights which

allow them to identify, evaluate, and articulate different ethical
viewpoints
and perspectives. Our assumption is that students will need to
be able to deal
with new ethical challenges that may require analysis, and to do
so in an
environment in which everyone may not be reasoning (or
asserting) from the
same ethical model.
Dackgraund
Interest in administrative ethics can be explained in part by the
fact that
administrators are confronted almost daily with a variety of
ethical dilemmas.
Although contributions from academic circles include a host of
normative and
descriptive ethics models, the actual use and application of
these models has
been modest at best. Robin and Reidenbach [1987] conclude
that, "What is
needed, but has not been forthcoming from these analyses, is a
useful, compre-
hensive, decision-oriented framework to a i d . . . in thinking
about the different
ethical dilemmas" (p. 3). Bergenson [1992] similarly concluded
that a review
of the progress in the Held of administrative ethics revealed a
disjointed body
of literature in need of a cohesive and coherent framework for
analysis.
The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and
Administration
(NASPAA) accreditation guidelines emphasize the need for core

curricula to
impart the "skills to act ethically and effectively . . ."
[NASPAA, 1992, p. 3].
From a national survey of graduate schools of public
administration, Cleary
[1990] identified ethics as the largest curricular gap, save for
concerns for
nonprofit management (p. 30). Cleary's findings and a belief in
the importance
of ethics in public administration are supported by others
[Bowman, 1990,
1991; Burton, 1990; Frederickson, 1990, 1994; Lee and
Paddock, 1992; Marini,
1992; Menson, 1990; Van Wart, 1995].
Notwithstanding these laments and the NASPAA directives for
more empha-
sis on ethics in curricula, Hejka-Ekins [1988] concluded: "In the
teaching of
public service ethics, vacillation is evident between a stated
commitment and
actual educational practices" (p. 885). Although there is general
agreement
about the importance of ethics instruction in the curriculum, the
majority of
programs have not developed specific ethics courses. The only
alternative to
a stand-alone course is the integration of ethics into courses
such as Policy
Analysis. Effective integration into coursework requires
accomplishing the
three most important goals of ethics education as identified by
public adminis-
tration educators themselves:
1. To develop an awareness of ethical issues and problems in

tbe field.
2. To build analytical skills in decisionmaking.
3. To cultivate an attitude of moral obligation and personal
responsibility in pursuing
a career in the public service. (Hejka-Ekins, 1988, p. 887)
The authors' experience with ethics education is strikingly
similar. Students
gain most from experiences that: (a) are based on an
understanding of the
diverse perspectives of moral philosophers (Hejka-Ekins's
"awareness of ethical
issues"); (b) frame the ethical dilemma in a model that allows
discussion
from diverse perspectives (Hejka-Ekins's "build analytical skills
in decision
making"); and (c) provide a vehicle for playing out the conflicts
that arise so
that students can measure the extent to which they have fulfilled
the manifold
4 7 2 / Cunicutum and Case Notes
and conflicting moral obligations they have identified (Hejka-
Ekins's "cultivate
an attitude of moral obligation in . . . public service").
Thus, successful classroom exercises require a framework that
is grounded
in theory, yet easy to understand and use. The purpose of this
article is to
describe the development and use of one such analytic method
that can be

applied in policy analysis courses. This approach to ethics
education is summa-
rized in the three steps that follow. The rationale for this
sequence is rooted
in a progressive exposure to the complexities of ethical
analysis. The framework
offered in Step 2 presents a tool one can use in Step 3 to
thoughtfully analyze
ethical dilemmas.
Step 1: Understanding the Basics af Maral Philasaphy
Understanding how great thinkers define ethical behavior is
central to the
exercise presented here. A summary reading assignment and a
brief discussion
can provide this foundation. Ethical theories are neither easily
nor consistently
applied to real-life situations. As a consequence, different
theories of ethics
may imply different actions in a given situation. Some theories
are based on
the consequences of one's actions [see John Stuart Mill, 1861,
and teleology]
while others are predicated on the original intent of one's
actions [see John
Rawls, 1971, and deontology]. For example, a Rawlsian
approach might indi-
cate that a certain action was ethical, while a Millian approach
may present
a contradictory view. Understanding diverse frames of reference
is essential for
a meaningful discussion of administrative ethics. To handle
ethical dilemmas
effectively, students must understand that utilitarians must
project outcomes

and assess the ethicality of actions based on a priori estimations
of outcomes,
whereas a deontologist must judge actions based on the intent of
the actors
regardless of the outcomes of the actions. At a minimum
students should
understand these theories in order to provide a vocabulary and a
sense of
ethical reasoning for subsequent discussions.
The Appendix provides a thumbnail sketch of three distinct
frames of refer-
ence or "schools of thought" and can be used as a summative
device for the
discussion of the readings suggested. In the interest of
parsimony, the Appendix
is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. The
reader is directed
to Gandz and Hayes [1988] and Rachaels [1986] for a more
thorough and
balanced treatment of the topic. Either of these readings makes
an excellent
assignment to precede the presentation of Step 2.
Step 2: Framing the Ethical Problem: The Obligatians by Parties
Matrix
Obligations
Over half a century ago, ethicist William Ross [1930]
identified, among others,
three duties that constitute moral obligations which he saw as
universal and
self-evident. Interpreted for the field of public administration,
these duties
apply to a variety of constituent groups and include the

obligations listed in
Table 1.
Similarly, Lewis [1991] provides a comprehensive and practical
approach
to administrative ethics that describes ethical issues in public
service, demon-
strates how theory can be applied to develop decisionmaking
methods and
tools, and concludes with a discussion of how these methods
and tools can be
used to create a more ethical public agency. Although her work
is not easily
Curriculum and Case Notes I 4 7 3
Table 1. Obligations of the public administrator.
Obligation Explanation
Do no barm Cause no pain or suffering or loss to otbers
Improvement Improve tbe condition of the relevant constituency
Equity/fairness Treat all groups and individuals fairly: tell the
truth; keep promises
applied within existing courses, her discussions of
deontological theory and
the stakeholder concept are particularly relevant examples for
illustrating the
development of the framework described in this article.' Here
the terms
"parties" and "stakeholders" are used synonomously.
Unlike philosophies of teleology and cultural relativism, Lewis

focuses on
deontological theory, emphasizing the responsibilities and
obligations of the
decisionmaker, not the morality or immorality of the outcomes
of those deci-
sions. This approach has become an emergent theoretical
perspective in public
administration although by no means the only one [see Brady
and WoUer,
1996]. Guy [1990], Lewis and Catron [1996], and the seminal
work of Lewis
[1991] have elaborated lists of or identified moral obligations
of decision-
makers. Combining and interpreting these lists only lends
further support for
the early, creative work of Ross.
Stakeholders/Parties
Another significant contribution of Lewis [ 1991 ] is the
inclusion of stakeholders
[similar to Freeman, 1984]. A stakeholder is a "significant
player in ethical
dilemmas" [Lewis, 1991, p. 120]. Stakeholders may be:
1. Internal: the organization or agency . . . superiors,
employees, and decision
maker.
2. External and direct: clients and suppliers, lawmakers,
taxpayers, and community
residents and businesses.
3. External and indirect: those keyed to general interests . . .
citizens and society,
other jurisdictions, the private sector, and future generations.

(Lewis, 1991, p. 121)
The Obligations by Parties (ODP) Matrix
This summary of current thought in both public and private
sector ethics
indicates that two concerns are important: (a) an awareness on
the part of the
decisionmaker of the responsibilities to relevant constituent
groups; and (b) an
adherence by the decisionmaker to moral obligations. The
framework to be
presented here directly addresses both of these concerns. This
framework is
less esoteric than most models in the literature and, as such,
may be more
useful to the practicing public manager and easier for students
to understand
and apply.
' An earlier iteration of the Obligations by Parties (OBP) matrix
was originally presented by the
authors in The Integration of Ethics into the Marketing
Curriculum: An Educator's Guide [Bol et al.,
1991, chap. 2]. A detailed review of other frameworks from the
literature, as well as corporate
guidelines in practice, are summarized therein. Although the
original iteration takes on a different
form, its review may provide additional insight for the
interested reader.
4 7 4 / Curriculum and Case Notes
Internal

Superiors
Employees
Self
External and
direct
Clients
Suppliers
Lawmakers
Taxpayers
Residents
Businesses
External and
indirect
Society
Other
jurisdictions
Future
generations
Do no harm Improvement Equity/fairness
Figure 1. The obligations by parties (OBP) matrix.
For a defined decisionmaking situation the OBP matrix focuses
tbe adminis-
trator's ethical analysis by asking the general question: "What is
owed to whom
in this situation?" Ethical behavior for the administrator is
defined as meeting
moral obligations to parties affected by the decision. The

decisionmaker must
consider each specific cell created by the intersection of the
obligation and
party (stakeholder) and document what is necessary to meet that
obligation
to that party. Once this process is complete, the administrator
must assess the
degree to which these norms have or have not been met for each
decision
alternative. Although the obligations are universal, each
decision situation may
result in a different set of obligations and relevant parties.
Figure 1 presents
a comprehensive example of the formulation of the OBP matrix.
Step 3: Application of the ODP Matrix
For classroom applications, students should proceed through the
matrix and
make cell-by-cell judgments as to whether the specific
obligation has been met
for each constituent group. Any cell not applicable to the
situation under
consideration should be ignored. When this process is complete,
several "prob-
lem cells" may have been identified. A problem cell is one in
which one or
more specific duties have not been met or where duties to
constituencies are
in conflict. The entire matrix should be inspected for each
alternative and
all problem cells should be identified. Problem cells are then
prioritized and
activities to eliminate the highest priority problem cell should
be considered.
The administrator should continue this process until all problem

cells have
been eliminated or until conflicts between problem cells
preclude this possibil-
ity. The process concludes with an ethical judgment for each
alternative. This
entire process is summarized in Table 2.
Curriculum and Case Notes I Alb
Table 2. The obligations by parties method.
1. Structure the matrix by determining the relevant parties and
obligations for the
decisionmaking situation in question.
2. For each cell of the matrix, specify the administrative
behaviors that will meet the
obligation to the party in question. This is the normative matrix.
3. For each alternative, identify the problem cells by comparing
what has actually been
done to the normative matrix.
4. Prioritize all problem cells and consider additional actions as
appropriate.
5. Make an ethical judgment about each alternative.
Classraam Applications
The matrix can be a powerful classroom learning tool. It allows
students to
visualize the full range of obligations they have in a given
administrative situa-
tion. The need to set priorities makes trade-offs among these

obligations appar-
ent. Differences in points of view will provide for interesting
and fruitful class
discussion. The need to take concrete actions to meet the most
important
obligations should be emphasized.
Individual students or administrators will perceive obligations
and actions
differently. This results in disparate priorities among class
members or across
the organization and fosters intense discussion about what
should be done.
The proposed framework does not identify a single course of
action that is
most appropriate; clearly, that is not its purpose. Rather, the
purpose is to
encourage individual students or administrators to approach the
decision from
diverse perspectives and confront such questions as: "Is this
obligation to
this group so significant that administrative action is required?"
or "Is this
obligation to this group so significant that it takes precedence
over obligations
to other groups?"
The authors have found this approach to be very useful. It is
simple to
explain, understand, and apply to administrative situations.
Most important,
students or administrators leave the encounter with a memorable
tool that
may be useful to them in future decisionmaking situations for
two reasons:
(a) it helps the decisionmaker to understand the diverse

perspectives individu-
als may bring to the dilemma; and (b) it helps clarify
imperatives for ethical
action.
Classroom Applicotlon: A Professionol Dilemmo
After students are exposed to the basics of moral philosophy,
ethical theories,
and how to structure situations using the OBP matrix, the
instructor can
present decision problems with ethical dimensions. One
classroom approach
would have students choose or be assigned an ethical dilemma.
Table 2 presents
the sequence of activities for applying the OBP matrix in such a
situation. For
example, suppose an administrator (student) is wrestling with
whether to leak
a document she has inadvertently come upon. The
decisionmaker is conflicted
because allowing the leak would significantly improve the
probability that a
"good" law would pass. The matrix forces the student to
consider all stake-
holders. Students must weigh context and ask questions like: Is
the law really
good for every relevant constituency? Will any parties be
harmed? Are all being
Alb I Curriculum and Case Notes
treated fairly? Would the profession of public administration or
the employing

agency be harmed if/when knowledge of the decision to leak
were made public?
This type of analysis will broaden students' thinking and
inevitably identify
some "problem cells" (Stage 3 in Table 2). Students must then
prioritize prob-
lem cells and make ethical judgments about alternatives, in this
case whether
to leak or not leak the information. Use of the matrix does not
eliminate the
need to make difficult ethical judgments. It does however, force
the student
or administrator to be thorough about relevant stakeholders and
salient obliga-
tions in a given situation.
Clossroom Applicotion: Cose Anolysis
A case can provide an application of the OBP matrix in a more
complex
decisionmaking situation. The case chosen for this illustrative
analysis is "Fi-
nances and Development" by Bradford J. Townsend [1996] in
the popular
International City/County Management Association (ICMA)
Municipal Man-
agement Series, Managing Local Government Finance: Cases in
Decision Mak-
ing. The case is summarized as follows. The process outlined in
Table 2 is then
applied to the case situation.
Clase summary. The case is set in the village of Oakwood.
Three years earlier,
two manufacturing facilities had closed. John Wendall was

elected mayor with
a campaign to lower taxes and increase jobs by attracting new
business and
aggressively expanding village boundaries. The former police
chief was ap-
pointed village manager, and Frank Schmidt, a professionally
trained adminis-
trator, was appointed economic development director to
accomplish these
objectives. The new village manager performed poorly, and
retired in less than
a year leaving a large deficit. Schmidt was named acting
manager, while Dan
LeBlanc, another experienced administrator, was hired to
improve village fi-
nances and promote economic development.
LeBlanc made significant improvements in both areas. The
budget deficit
was eliminated and three large development projects were
identified. LeBlanc
and his staff made significant progress in bringing two of the
projects to a
successful conclusion. The third project, however, raised a
boundary dispute
with Petersville, a larger city to the north. The Oakwood Board
of Trustees
requested that Schmidt and LeBlanc study the boundary issue.
As a result,
Schmidt and LeBlanc proposed a boundary that was favorable to
Oakwood and
provided cost-benefit analyses to support their plan. The initial
negotiations
between mayors, attorneys, and managers of both municipalities
resulted in
only minor modifications to this boundary.

Strategic Management Research StudiesDr. Salas.docx

Strategic Management Research StudiesDr. Salas.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Strategic Management Research StudiesDr. Salas.docx

Similar to Strategic Management Research StudiesDr. Salas.docx (16)

More from susanschei

More from susanschei (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Strategic Management Research StudiesDr. Salas.docx