One of the most perplexing problems facing modern governments is how to balance the pursuit of integrity with that of efficiency. The pursuit of integrity has resulted in a massive body of rules and oversight structures that can paralyze management and harm efficiency. Most administrative prescriptions do not deal with the root of this problem—the insistence that integrity be assured by managerial strategies rather than administrative moral agencies. This article argues that by instilling a culture of stewardship, so that integrity flows from people, public agencies could ease heavy-handed corruption controls and pursue efficiency relatively unhindered. A case study of the Edmonton Public Schools is offered to illustrate how stewardship could harmonize the pursuit of integrity and efficiency.
AnechiaricoF. (1999). End-Runs and Hairy Eyeballs: The Costs of Corruption Control in Market Democracies. 14Connecticut Journal of International Law, 379.
2.
AnechiaricoF.JacobsJ. (1994). Visions of corruption control and the evolution of American public administration. Public Administration Review, 54, 465-473.
3.
AnechiaricoF.JacobsJ. (1996). The pursuit of absolute integrity: How corruption control makes government ineffective. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
4.
ArgyrisC. (1974). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363-375.
5.
ArgyrisC. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76, 98-105.
CookB. J. (1996). Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role of public administration in American politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
CooperT. L. (1984). Citizenship and professionalism in public administration. Public Administration Review, 44, 143-151.
17.
DasT. K.TengB. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491-512.
18.
DavisJ.SchoormanD.DonaldsonL. (1997). Towards a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20-47.
19.
de BruijnH. (2002). Managing performance in the public sector. London, England: Routledge.
20.
deLeonP. (2005). Cowboys and the new public management: Political corruption as a harbinger. In FredericksonG. H.GhereR. K. (Eds.), Ethics in public management (pp. 203-219). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
21.
DenhardtK. G. (1991). Ethics and Fuzzy Worlds. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 50(3), 274-278.
22.
DenhardtR.DenhardtJ. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549-559.
23.
DickeL. A.StevenJ. Ott. (2002). A Test: Can Stewardship Theory Serve as a Second conceptual Foundation for Accountability Methods in Contracted human Services?International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 463-483.
24.
DubnickM.O’KellyC. (2005). Accountability through thick and thin: Moral agency in public service. In FredericksonG. H.GhereR. K. (Eds.), Ethics in public management (pp. 139-162). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
25.
EdeyJ. (2008, February15). Director of Support Services, Payroll, EPS, Interview.
26.
EisenhardtK.GraebnerM. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32.
27.
FinerH. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1, 335-350.
28.
FliegelS.McGuireJ. (1993). Miracle in East Harlem: The fight for choice in public education. New York, NY: Times Books.
29.
FogalR. E. (2005). Designing and managing the fundraising program. In HermanR. D. (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 419-435). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
30.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman/Ballinger.
31.
FredericksonD. G.FredericksonG. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
32.
FredericksonG. (1980). The new public administration. University: University of Alabama Press.
33.
FredericksonG.SmithK. (2003). The public administration theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview.
34.
FriedrichC. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In FriedrichC. J.MasonE. S. (Eds.), Public policy (pp. 3-24). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GhoshalS.BartlettC. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91-112.
37.
Gibbs G. (2007). Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: SAGE.
38.
GoodsellC. (1990). Public administration and the public interest. In WamsleyG.BacherR.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP.RohrJ.StiversC. . . . WolfJ. F. (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 96-113). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
39.
GoodsellC. (2004). The case for bureaucracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
GreenleafR. (1982). The servant as leader. Robert Greenleaf Center. Indianapolis, IN.
41.
GulickL. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In GulickL.UrwickL. (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (Vol. 4, pp. 1-40). New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.
42.
HabinskiA. (2001, October16). Director of Information Technology, EPS, Interview.
43.
HabinskiA. (2006, August10). Director, Special Projects, Alberta Ministry Education, Interview.
44.
HernandezM. (2008). Promoting Stewardship Behavior in Organizations: A Leadership Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 121-128
45.
HarmonM. M. (1995). Responsibility as paradox: A critique of rational discourse on government. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46.
HegartyH.SimsH.Jr. (1979). Organizational philosophy, policies and objectives related to unethical decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 331-358.
47.
HofstedeG. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
48.
HoltB. (2001, October15). Director of Personnel, EPS, Interview.
49.
HubertsL.SixF.LasthuizenK. (2008). Evaluation of the Amsterdam integrity system. In HubertsL.AnechiaricoF.SixF. (Eds.), Local integrity systems (pp. 212-227). The Hague, Netherlands: BJu Legal Publishers.
50.
InkpenA. C.CurrallS. C. (2004). Coevolution of trust, control and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15, 586-599.
PierceyD. (2008, February1). Manager of Consulting Services, EPS, Interview.
66.
RadinB. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
67.
RavitchD. (2000). The great school wars. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
68.
RomzekB. S.DubnickM. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227-238.
69.
RosenbloomD. H. (1994). The evolution of the administrative state and transformations of administrative law. In RosenbloomD.SchwartzR. D. (Eds.), Handbook of regulation and administrative law. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
70.
SchachterH. L. (2007). Does Frederick Taylor’s ghost still haunt the halls of government? A look at the concept of governmental efficiency in our time. Public Administration Review, 67, 800-810.
71.
SchoormanD.MayerR. C.DavisJ. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344-354.
72.
SegalL. (1997). The pitfalls of political decentralization and proposals for reform: The case of the New York City schools. Public Administration Review, 57, 141-149.
73.
SegalL. (2004). Battling corruption in America’s public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
SergiovanniT. J. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
75.
SonnenL. (2008, February1). Director Leadership Services, EPS, Interview.
76.
StrembitskyM. (2001, October15). Former Superintendent, EPS, Interview.
TrevinoL. K.WeaverG. R.ReynoldsS. J. (2006). Behavior ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951-990.
79.
van BlijswijkJ.van BreukelenR.FranklinA.RaadscheldersJ.SlumpP. (2004). Beyond ethical codes: The management of integrity in the Netherlands tax and customs administration. Public Administration Review, 64, 718-727.
80.
Van SlykeD. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government–nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.
81.
VlaarP.FransW. L.van den BoschA. J.VolberdaH. W. (2007). On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32, 407-429.
82.
WamsleyG. (1990a). Introduction. In WamsleyG.BacherR.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP.RohrJ.StiversC. . . . WolfJ. F. (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 19-29). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
83.
WamsleyG. (1990b). The agency perspective. In WamsleyG.BacherR.GoodsellC. T.KronenbergP.RohrJ.StiversC. . . . WolfJ. F. (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 114-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
84.
YinR. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
