Advertisement

Professional Integrity and Leadership in Public Administration

  • Wolfgang Seibel
Chapter
Part of the Executive Politics and Governance book series (EXPOLGOV)

Abstract

Seibel addresses the question of what makes public officials neglect professional standards when facing conflictive decision-making. The chapter explores the failure of German police authorities to investigate the nature of a series of killings committed in the early 2000s. Using a parliamentary committee report, the chapter re-analyses a key episode of decision-making when an attempt to streamline the organization and management of relevant police authorities and to re-evaluate the investigation’s core hypotheses failed to materialize. In doing so, Seibel reveals a tension between the logic of professional integrity or ‘goal attainment’ and the logic of ‘system maintenance’, also emphasizing the necessity to re-consider the notion of professional integrity and its protection through considerate leadership.

Keywords

Administrative leadership Professional integrity Goal attainment System maintenance Criminal investigation Limits of pragmatism 

References

  1. Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benz, A. (1994). Kooperative Verwaltung: Funktionen, Voraussetzungen und Folgen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  3. Benz, A. (2000). Two types of multi-level governance: Intergovernmental relations in German and EU regional policy. Regional & Federal Studies, 10(3), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlin, I. (1997). Political judgement. In H. Hardy (Ed.), The sense of reality: Studies in ideas and their history (pp. 40–53). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  5. Bovens, M. (1998). The quest for responsibility: Accountability and citizenship in complex organisations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bruttel, L., & Fischbacher, U. (2013). Taking the initiative: What characterizes leaders? European Economic Review, 64, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the New Public Management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2011). The new public service: Serving, not steering (3rd ed.). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  9. Deutsch, K. W. (1963). The nerves of government: Models of political communication and control. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deutscher Bundestag. (2013). 17. Wahlperiode, Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des 2. Untersuchungsausschusses nach Artikel 44 des Grundgesetztes (Drucksache 17/14600, August 22, 2013). Berlin: Deutscher Bundestag.Google Scholar
  11. Enderlein, H., Wälti, S., & Zürn, M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook on multi-level governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. ’t Hart, P. (2014). Understanding public leadership. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hildebrand, D. L. (2005). Pragmatism, neopragmatism, and public administration. Administration & Society, 37(3), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hildebrand, D. L. (2008). Public administration as pragmatic, democratic, and objective. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kaufman, H. (1960). The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Hopkins: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  17. Lipsky, M. (2010 [1980]). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, H. T. (2004). Why old pragmatism needs an upgrade. Administration & Society, 36(2), 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Moore, M. H. (2014). Public value accounting: Establishing the philosophical basis. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olsen, J. P. (2008). The logic of appropriateness. In R. E. Goodin, M. Moran, & M. Ren (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 690–704). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Seibel, W. (2010). Beyond bureaucracy: Public administration as political integrator and non-Weberian thought in Germany. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 719–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seibel, W. (2014). Kausale Mechanismen des Behördenversagens: Eine Prozessanalyse des Fahndungsfehlschlags bei der Aufklärung der NSU-Morde. der moderne staat, (2014/02), 375–413.Google Scholar
  26. Seibel, W. (2016). Hybridity and responsible leadership in public administration. In G. Abels (Ed.), Vorsicht Sicherheit! Legitimationsprobleme der Ordnung von Freiheit (pp. 311–333). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  27. Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  29. Shields, P. M. (2003). The community of inquiry: Classical pragmatism and public administration. Administration & Society, 35(5), 510–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shields, P. M. (2008). Rediscovering the Taproot: Is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration? Public Administration Review, 68(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance? American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. West, K., & Davis, P. (2011). What is the public value of government action? Towards a (new) pragmatic approach to values questions in public endeavours. Public Administration, 89(2), 226–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, I., & Shearer, H. (2011). Appraising public value: Past, present and futures. Public Administration, 89(4), 1367–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political and Administrative SciencesUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations