Prior scholarship on stewardship as a principle of administration largely portrays stewardship as too idealistic and dependent upon situational factors to be institutionalized in large-scale organizations. Through a case study of the Edmonton Public Schools, this study explores the extent to which stewardship can be institutionalized as a central organizing principle, thereby ensuring performance and checking corruption in ways that are consistent with the primacy of intrinsic motivation. The study deepens our understanding of the challenges that managers face in reconciling stewardship with a bureaucratic context, documents practices that have been used to deal with these challenges, and more broadly discusses how it might be possible for islands of stewardship to emerge in a world governed by assumptions of human opportunism. To this end the paper develops a model of the choice that organization members face in deciding to elect a principal-agent or a stewardship posture within large-scale organizations. This model draws on assumptions of human ambivalence in choosing between self-serving and altruistic modes of conduct.
AlexandrukF. (1985). School Budgeting in the Edmonton Public School District. Master of Education thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
2.
AgnewR. (2007). Pressured into crime. Oxford University Press.
3.
Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) (1979) (November16) E.P.S.L. Survey on School-Based Budgeting.
4.
AnechiaricoFrank (1999). End-runs and hairy eyeballs: The costs of corruption control in market democracies. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 14 (Fall), 379.
5.
AnechiaricoF.JacobsJ. (1994). Visions of corruption control and the evolution of American public administration. Public Administration Review, 54, 465–473.
6.
ArgyrisC. (1998). Empowerment: The Emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76, 98–105.
7.
AxelrodR. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
8.
BanduraA. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27–46.
9.
BanduraA.CaparaG.BarbaranelliC.PastorelliC.RegaliaC. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 125–135.
10.
BajajR. (2006). Deputy Chief, Accountability Office, NYC Department of Education, Interview, August25.
11.
BarbutoJ. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. 11(4), 26–40.
BassB. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
14.
BemD. J. (1967). Self-perception: The dependent variable of human performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 2, 105–121.
15.
BleulerE. (1911). Dementia Praecox, oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien. Leipzig: Deuticke.
16.
BlockP. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
17.
BrownD. J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London: Falmer Press.
18.
BurnsJ. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
19.
CaldwellB. J. (1977). Decentralized School Budgeting in Alberta: An Analysis of Objectives, Adoption, Operation and Perceived Outcomes in Selected School Systems. Doctoral thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
20.
CaldwellD.ChatmanJ.O’ReillyC. (1990). Building organizational commitment: A multiform study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245–261.
21.
CharbonneauD.BarlingJ.KellowayE. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1521–1534.
22.
ChoiJ.WangH. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 345–359.
CrossanM. M.LaneH. W.WhiteR. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.
25.
CogglesB. (2008). Assistant Superintendent, Edmonton Public Schools, Interview, June27.
26.
DaneliukC. (1972) (March3). Budget Decentralization Report. Memorandum to Dr. Rolland W. Jones, Superintendent, Edmonton Public School Board.
27.
DasT. K.TengB. (1998). Between trust and control. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491–512.
28.
DavisJ.SchoormanD.DonaldsonL. (1997). Towards a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47.
29.
DelaneyJ. G. (1995). The relationship between school-based management and school improvement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
30.
DickeL. (2002). Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fill the bill?American Review of Public Administration, 32, 455–470.
31.
DickeL. A.OttS. J. (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, 463–483.
32.
DonaldsonLexDavisJames (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management16(1), 49–64.
33.
DosdallE. (2001). Edmonton’s enterprise. School Administrator, 58(5), 6–11.
34.
DosdallE.DiemertN. (2001). Working from a higher rung. Journal of Staff Development, 22, 26–29.
35.
EPS (1975) (May9). Notes on decentralization. Edmonton: Edmonton Public Schools.
36.
EPS (1976). Minutes of EPS Staff Meeting of November 18, 1976. Edmonton: Edmonton Public Schools.
37.
Edmonton Public School Board (1964). Policy Handbook.
38.
Edmonton Public School Board (1965). Policy Handbook.
39.
EdeyJ. (2008). Director, Support Services, Payroll Department, EPS, Interview, February15.
40.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.
41.
FredericksonH. G.SmithK. (2003). The public administration theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
GhoshalS.MoranP. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.
48.
GibbsGraham R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.
49.
HabinskiA. (2001). Director, Information Technology, EPS, Interview, October16.
50.
HabinskiA. (2006). Director, Special Projects, Alberta Ministry of Education, Interview, August10.
51.
HallP. (2003). Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In MahoneyJ.RueschemeyerD. (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (pp. 373–406). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
HernandezMorela (2008) Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: A leadership model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 121–128.
53.
HofstedeG. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York; London: McGraw Hill.
HubertsL.SixF.LasthuizenK. (2008). Evaluation of the Amsterdam Integrity System. In HubertsL.AnechiaricoF.SixF. (Eds.), Local Integrity systems. The Hague: BJu Legal Publishers.
56.
InkpenA.CurrallS. (2004). Coevolution of trust, control and learning in joint ventures. Organization Science, 15, 586–599.
KimC.MauborgneR. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review, 81, 127–136.
59.
KleparchukH. (1970). Supervisory services considered desirable by teachers and principals in ‘open space’ elementary schools. Report for the Oregon School Study Council, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene. OSSC Bulletin, 14(2) (October).
60.
LangeD. (2008). A multidimensional conceptualization of organizational corruption control. Academy of Management Review, 33, 710–729.
MarvelM.MarvelH. (2008). Government-to-government contracting: Stewardship, agency, and substitution. International Public Management Journal, 11, 171–192.
65.
McBeathA. (2001). Decentralized dollars and decisions: Central office support of site-specific programmes within Edmonton Public Schools system. School Administrator, 58(5) (May), 12–16.
66.
McBeathA. (2007). The Edmonton Public Schools Story: Internationally Renowned Superintendent Angus McBeath Chronicles His District’s Successes and Failures, Policy Brief. September28. Mackinac Center for public Policy No. S2007–13.
67.
MertonR. K. (1976). Social ambivalence and other essays. New York, NY: Free Press.
68.
MilesMatthew B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
69.
MoroziukC. N. (1996). Site Based Management: Experiences of Edmonton Public School Principals. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
70.
NooteboomB. (2007). Social capital, institutions and trust. Review of Social Economy, 65(1), 29–53.
71.
OuchiW.SegalL. (2003). Making schools work. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
72.
OuchiW. (2006). Power to the principals: Decentralization in three large school districts. Organization Science, 17, 298–307.
73.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ParryAlan E. (1976) School-based budget: Pilot Project. Memorandum to M. A. Strembitsky, Superintendent, Edmonton Public School Board, September2.
78.
ParryAlan E. (1977). Extracts from Position Paper on school based budgeting. Edmonton Public Schools, December22.
79.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A theory of resource dependence. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
80.
PhillipsL. (1998). School-Based Management, Expectations and Outcomes: Edmonton Public Schools 15 Years After Implementation. Master’s Thesis submitted to the Department of Educational Policy Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
81.
PiccoloR. F.ColquittJ. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.
82.
PutnamR. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83.
SegalL. G. (2004). Battling corruption in America’s public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
84.
ShamirB.HouseR. J.ArthurM. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
85.
SmelserN. J. (1998). The rational and the ambivalent in the social sciences. American Sociological Review, 63 (February), 1–16.
TanseyO. (2006). Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case of non-probability sampling. Working Paper, Nuffield College.
90.
TrevinoL. K.WeaverG. R.ReynoldsS. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.
91.
Van SlykeD. (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.
92.
VlaarP.Van den BoschF.VolberdaH. (2007). On the evolution of trust, distrust, and formal coordination and control in interorganizational relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32, 407–429.
93.
WassermanN. (2006). Stewards, agents, and the founder discount: Executive compensation in new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 960–976.
94.
WilliamsonO. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.
95.
YinRobert K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
