Bureaucrats, entrepreneurs, and stewards: Seeking legitimacy in contemporary governance

The purpose of this theoretical inquiry was to understand the meaning of legitimacy encoded in various public administration role conceptualizations. It was prompted by differences in what is considered "legitimate" to elected officials, public administrators, and engaged citizens in various local governance activities. A robust theoretical foundation was desired for future empirical study of such phenomena. A Weberian ideal type model was developed from theories explicated in principal texts of public administration and related fields. The findings argue that role conceptualizations are linked to different meanings of legitimacy, and that there is a relationship between role conceptualization and a variety of concepts and social structures deemed important to public administration. Based on mutually exclusive logics of legitimacy, three theoretical traditions emerged: Constitutional, Discretionary, and Collaborative. Following this 'genetic code,' varying meanings of culturally significant elements were described for each tradition, including: the assumed governance context political ontology political authority and scope of action formulations of responsibility and accountability decision making rationality and organizing style. In combination, each coherent set characterizes a specific role conceptualization: Bureaucrat, Entrepreneur, or Steward. The ideal types were then considered as problems of legitimacy in the contemporary governance context, using critical analysis, case vignettes, and secondary research to formulate arguments. Conclusions were drawn regarding the most promising role conceptualization: the Collaborative tradition's Steward. This tradition views public administration as a facilitative convener of self-governance. It assumes that governance occurs through overlapping, fluid networks comprised of all sectors of society in an increasingly local to global configuration. It accommodates the uniqueness of each individual, while enabling co-creation through egalitarian relationship. It dissolves boundaries between politics and administration, and the individual and society. It transcends dysfunctional modes of relating based on contract and self-interest, fostering the social bond of mutual obligation. It merges instrumental and substantive rationality, supporting long-lasting and effective decisions. It generates the trust required for effective networks. Because of these implications for practice, pursuit of this role conceptualization will require substantive changes to pedagogy. But before making such a recommendation, empirical research should be completed to determine its desirability and feasibility for contemporary governance.