values of tomorrow's city managers

7/30/2019 Values of Tomorrow's City Managers

1/29

Exploring the (Generation) X Factor: Survey Results on the Values

of Tomorrows City Managers

by

Deborah A. Knudson, Ph.D. Student Justin Marlowe, Ph.D. Student (presenter)[email protected] [email protected]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

P.O. Box 413, Bolton Hall 674

Milwaukee, WI 53201(414) 229-2369

Presented at the 2002 American Society for Public Administration National Conference

Phoenix, AZMarch 23-26, 2002

Abstract

Much has been said, both in academic circles and in the popular media, about the significant

value differences between Generation X and its predecessors. By some accounts, thisgenerations heightened emphasis on pragmatism, political disengagement, techno literacy,

flexibility, entrepreneurship, and other values may have significant effects on all aspects ofpublic life, especially public administration. However, most examinations of these value

differences have been anecdotal and journalistic rather than empirical. In this paper, we attemptto provide a methodologically sound commentary on the presence or absence of this conflict

within one specialty city management by systematically collecting comments from todaysmanagement assistants.

With these potential differences in mind, this paper has two objectives. First, it attempts to

discern whether these value differences actually exist. This question is addressed through a

survey instrument, distributed to management assistants in four states. These results are thencompared to similar, longitudinal results from another city management survey. With soundempirical claims established, the second section of the paper speculates about the impact these

value differences may have on city management, and public administration as a whole.

Please do not cite or reproduce any portion of this paper without the consent of the authors


2/29

2

Introduction

Since first appearing in 1991, Generation X (GX) has become the popular euphemism

for the collective characterization of Americans born between 1967 and 1978 (Bennett and

Rademacher 1997; Coupland 1991, 3). Since that time, media portrayals of this generation have

taken on a distinctly critical character, and popular descriptions of Xers have ranged from the

profoundly flaccid generation to the do nothing generation to the brain dead generation

(Holtz 1995). Without a doubt, GX carries with it a popular perception that may prove difficult

to shed. Today, however, this generations image has been recast somewhat, due to a recent

proliferation of prominent GX figures entering public life, electoral politics, and the popular

media corps. More recent accounts cast GX as pragmatic rather than apathetic,

technoliterate rather than brain-dead, flexible rather than fickle, entrepreneurial rather than

impatient, and so forth.

The debate surrounding the source of these observed generational differences is equally

polarized. Critics frequently cite the fact that GX grew up in an era of unprecedented prosperity,

insulated from war or sacrifice (Coupland 1991). The result, they claim, is a generation

willing to take for granted many of the amenities previous generations earned through hardship

and conflict. Xers refute such claims by citing the record high rates of divorce, deficit, urban

sprawl, latchkey children, and other pathological social ills they claim will cripple their

generation throughout its collective adult life (Holtz 1995). For many Xers, Watergate served as

an initial exposure to government and politics. The prospect of providing elderly care for Baby

Boomers, who outnumber Xers nearly 2 to 1, is itself a sobering prospect for GX. As a result,

Xers claim, their outlook is well-tempered, pragmatic, and localistic. Rather than acting in

pursuit of the higher, moral principles, that served as the catalyst for watershed Boomer


3/29


4/29

4

conceptual framework used in this research. Those contributions are described in greater detail

below.

This research attempts to parlay those findings into a broader understanding of how GXs

value differences may affect the future of city management, and public administration in general.

In order to do so, however, we must overcome a number of methodological and empirical

challenges that appear to have stifled fruitful research in the past. The first is the problem of

studying generations. Clearly, any generation is an interpretative construct subject to harsh

criticism from methodologists across the field. Rather than defend the concept against such

criticisms, this paper briefly outlines the development of generation as a heuristic device in

sociological research, and attempts to follow the guidelines provided there. The second

methodological challenge surrounds the study of values. Although it may be difficult to

effectively operationalize and define values in any robust sense, public administration

scholarship has put forth a sincere recent attempt to do so (Dehhardt 2001). In addition, research

on city management frequently addresses the question of dynamic values over time (Bresner

1999). This research attempts to draw on those findings in order to understand the future of city

management practice. And finally, research on GX in the public sector was nearly prohibited in

the past due to a lack of research subjects. Today, however, GX occupies a significant place in

the assistant city/county management ranks, and an ever-increasing presence among top

management. As a result, the present seems an appropriate time to conduct research of this sort.

Therefore, this paper proceeds in three parts. The first provides the theoretical

background necessary for a thorough understanding of generations and their role in shaping the

values, perceptions, and attitudes of our survey population. It begins with a brief discussion of

the development of generations as a tool in social research. The work of a number of


5/29

5

sociologists (Marias 1961; Ortega y Gasset 1962; Mannheim 1952) has proven especially useful

developing a theoretical framework for application to politics and public administration. It

continues by describing value differences that have been observed in the field so far, specifically

within the previously mentioned public personnel/human resources management literature. The

intersection of those two lines of inquiry provides the theoretical underpinning for our empirical

work on these issues. The second section describes the statistical findings resulting from a

survey of 52 municipal management assistants in Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, and southern

California.2

In administering the survey, our intent was two fold. First, we attempted to

compare management assistants responses to the results of a city manager survey (Bresner

1999) from 1994 and 1998. These longitudinal results, although not yet definitive, indicate that

todays assistants may have significantly different perceptions of their role as managers and the

stability of their profession. Second, the survey allows us to draw comparisons within the

management assistant population, due to the fact that the survey response included adequate

representation of both GX (those born 1968-1978) and Baby Boomers (those born 1948-1967).

As a result, we are able to demonstrate that these same differences exist within assistant ranks.

The final section provides some speculation about the future of city management, and public

administration in general, in light of these findings.

Generation X in the Public Sector: Theoretical and Conceptual Issues

The Problem of Interpreting and Studying Generations

The study of generations, and generational politics in particular, is a difficult undertaking. In

his seminal commentary on the problems of generations, Hungarian sociologist Karl

Mannheim (1952, 276-323), heavily influenced by the phenomenological movement as well as a


6/29

6

rediscovery of earlier contributions (Marias 1961 and Ortega y Gasset 1962), surveyed the state

of the theoretical practice. His analysis revolves around two key methodological considerations:

our types and definitions of social aggregates, and our general conception of time and progress.

His work approaches these questions from both a positivist perspective, which demands

operationalizing the totality of a generational experience for comparison purposes, and a

competing romantic-historicist perspective that attempts to describe the collective experience

that is itself a generational phenomena (276). Although qualitative studies have provided a

wealth of interesting conclusions, we proceed from a positivist perspective, and must consider

the collected individual activities of social aggregates. These social aggregates lend themselves

to a variety of classifications. One scheme, albeit imperfect, distinguishes between "community"

groups (Gemeinschaftsgebilde,families, tribes, etc.) and "association" groups

(Gesellschaftsgebilde, bureaucratic departments, political parties, etc.). The difficulty in

addressing issues of generations, class, or nation for instance lies in the fact that they fall

somewhere outside of these traditional conceptions (Beh 1996; also see Katznelson 1982).

For Mannheim, the formation of a historical generation was not simply the result the

proximity of birth dates, but a means of linking collective character, life cycle and social events.

Instead, historical generation must be understood, to borrow a phrase from C. Wright Mills

(1959), in terms of the "intersection of biography and history." Ultimately Mannheim proposed

the formation of historical generations with their own distinct consciousness orentelechyis, the

result of the intersection of three types of location: location in life- cycle (age), location in space

(geography), and location in time (history). With a few exceptions, most political science

inquiry has focused almost exclusively on age, or location in life-cycle, and tended to view

geographical and historical location as incidental.


7/29

7

Therefore, in order to make a definitive statement about generations, we must utilize

measures that account not only for age, but socioeconomic standing, life experience, and

geography as well. With certain reservations, the municipal management assistant population

meets these criteria. In many ways, the population is very homogenous. Most management

assistants share similar career interests and types of specialized knowledge. With some

exception and variation, most local governments provide roughly the same package of services

and serve the same basic functions from community to community. Specifically with regard to

education, it can be argued that curriculum and accreditation standards, such as those enforced

by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, create uniformity

across the profession. At the same time, we find tremendous variety in region, racial and ethnic

variables, political culture, socioeconomic considerations, and a host of other variables that

impact city management practice. Therefore, we consider the municipal management assistant

population to be well-suited for analysis of generational-type questions.3

Generations and Value Conflicts in Public Administration

To date, the majority of the empirically and methodologically sound conclusions about

GX have grown out of a body of literature created by the personnel and human resources fields.

Beginning in the late 1980s, personnel managers in both the public and private sectors had

begun to realize tremendous differences between their GX and non-GX employees in terms of

motivation, career goals, incentives, communication, and many other common human resource

concerns (Jurkiewicz 2000). By the early 1990s, Xers in many public and private organizations

had clearly articulated a unique set of demands and expectations upon their employers. Since


8/29

8

that time, research on these differences has addressed a variety of concerns using many different

approaches.

Although the early work on the subject spoke with a profoundly cynical and prohibitive

tone (for examples see Tulgan 1999), current research has uncovered and described in detail

many of GXs unique tendencies. In addition, many of those findings have been translated into a

number of management strategies, methods, and models to account for these differences. Some

work has generated processes by which managers can mediate or alleviate conflict between

Xers and their colleagues from other generations (Eng 1996; Losyk 1997a; Losyk 1997b; Tulgan

1999; OBannon 2000; Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak 2000). Having only recently identified this

generations professional strengths and interests, a separate but related literature provides

recommendations for how firms can become a GX employer of choice (Corley 1999). Human

resource experts have also attempted to illustrate differences between GX and its predecessors in

terms of workplace performance, motivation, success, and incentives (Jurkiewicz and Brown

1998; Jurkiewicz 2000; Rosen 1999; Woolridge, Smith-Mason, and Bellamy 2000). At the core

of these findings lies the realization of a clear, recurring pattern of value differences unique to

GX.

Broadly speaking, GX differs from its predecessor Boomer generation in primarily three

ways. First, this generation seems to share a collective sense of pragmatism. Although no

comprehensive explanation can currently account for this trend, many Xers attribute their

emphasis on tolerance and flexibility to a backlash against their Boomer parents. Where the

civic turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s forced many Boomers to adopt and defend an overarching

sense ethics and morality (the anti-war movement, for instance), the lack of such turmoil in the

1980s and 1990s incubated GXs sense of pragmatism. This difference has manifested itself


9/29

9

several ways. For instance, a 1997 survey found that nearly one-third of Xers agreed with the

statement there is no single way to live, an affirmative response double that of the previous

generation (OBannon 2001, 102). This pragmatism is also evident in the GXs propensity for

entrepreneurship. A recent University of Michigan study, for instance, found that Xers are

starting businesses three times that of the Boomer generation (Morrison 1999). In the workplace,

many Xers claim to have not identified a career path, but rather prefer to make investments in

individual human capital (Jurkiewicz 2001). These differences have created serious perception

issues among some Boomers whom perceive GXs pragmatism as disloyalty or impatience

(Loysk 1997a). In any case, we expect this pragmatism to be reflected in our survey results.

A second, uniquely Generation X trait is balance. Having grown up during a period

characterized by record numbers of double income families, single working parents, and great

economic instability, GX is believed to place great emphasis on balancing work and family

demands. In fact, 57% of 2500 university students responding to a 2000

PriceWaterhouseCoopers survey cited attaining a balance between personal life and career as

their primary career goal, compared with 45% in 1997 (OBannon 2001). As a result, Xers are

reportedly placing a premium on flex-time, vacation and leisure time, telecommuting, and other

practices allowing for more time away from the workplace. Although Xers are not the first

generation to place such demands their employers, the pursuit of balance seems particularly

salient among them.

Finally, Generation X seems to have a very different notion of trust

Data Analysis and Results


10/29

10

Survey Methodology

In order to examine these questions empirically, we distributed a survey instrument to

267 municipal management assistants in Wisconsin, southern California, New York, and Ohio.

The instrument itself is unique in primarily two ways. First, it was distributed through electronic

mail.4

Given the subject matter, and a limited research budget, we took the opportunity to

engage in a widespread use of this now firmly established communication technology. The

instrument was also unique in that it consisted primarily of qualitative (or open-ended)

questions that were designed to elicit responses that were somewhat rhetorical in nature, but

could still be subjected to statistical analysis. However, as will be demonstrated later, none of

the responses to questions about motivations, policy preferences, and values were solicited by

the questionnaire. For instance, rather than listing policy priorities (in a manner similar to the

International City/County Management Associations methodology)5, we simply asked subjects

to list policy areas they planned to focus on in their careers. In some cases, the technique

yielded a body of responses too diffuse to be of any utility at this point. However, in some cases,

the responses were remarkably homogenous. In our opinion, the lack of any suggested responses

lends tremendous empirical support to the patterns were have identified. At the present, 52

surveys have been received and coded for a response rate just under 20%.6

Fortunately, the

responses were distributed almost evenly among Boomers and Xers, and we are able to draw

intra-sample comparisons as a result.7

It should be noted that we do not consider this to be a representative sample of the

universe of municipal management associations. Although such a sample is a goal for the future,

these results simply describe what might be considered the early stages of a work in progress.

Although there exists a great deal of variance in our current sample, we consider this paper a


11/29

11

description of early findings, emerging issues, and areas of potential further research rather than

a definitive empirical commentary on these research questions.

Although the instrument contained a total of ten question items in addition to

demographic information, this paper describes the results of three questions most relevant to the

research question at hand. Those questions surround 1) the motivating factors that led the

respondent to pursue a career in public service, 2) the policy areas the respondent considered

most important to their future city management practice, and 3) a normative question about the

values the respondent considered most important to a successful career in public service. The

questions themselves, and a more detailed explanation of the questionnaire itself is included in

Appendix A. In addition, the instrument included several questions that have been contained in a

previous, similar survey of city managers (Bresner 1999) that occurred in 1994 and 1998. These

questions address the individuals perceptions of stability and changing roles within the city

management profession, and are compared to past city manager responses. Although these

results are somewhat difficult to discern at this point, this survey allows for some initial

comparisons.

Results

In general, the survey results confirm some of the popular conceptions about generational

differences between Boomers and Xers, and roundly reject many others. The specific results are

discussed here.

Responses to a question about motivation question (What do you consider your top three

reasons for pursuing a career in municipal management?) indicate some potentially unique

findings. A total of 19 reasons were identified, and the seven receiving more than three


12/29

12

responses are reported in Table 2 below (a full list of reasons, policy areas, and values are

included in Appendix B along with sample responses and the coding scheme for each).

Table 1 Age Group Statistical Comparison of Motivation ResponsesSorted by Boomers and Xers

# of Boomer

Responses

# of Xer

Responses

ANOVA

(F-Test)

Pearson

Chi-SquareCramers V

Reasons for Career Choice

Public Service 15 11 2.830* 2.786* .231*Variety of Tasks/Challenges 10 7 .209 - -

Job security/stability 8 11 .191 - -Work with People 4 13 5.558** 5.202* .316*

Visible Difference 12 13 .064 - -

Interest/Talent 4 9 1.639 - -Fulfilling/Rewarding Career 7 3 2.881* 2.833* .233*

N = 52

* = significant at .1 level** = significant at .05 level

For each question examined, we have conducted an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to

determine if the responses vary significantly within the Boomer or GX cohort. In other words, a

significant ANOVA statistic indicates that one age cohort is significantly more likely than

another to provide that particular response. For those responses with significant ANOVA

statistics, additional Pearson Chi-Square and Cramers V statistics were calculated to determine

the strength of the potential relationship within the identified age cohorts.

In this case, two of the three career choice reasons unfortunately fall outside the

conceptual purview of the Boomer vs. GX discussion. A desire to work with people, although

reported significantly more often by GX, cannot yet be attributed to any generational differences.

The same logic applies to the perception of public service as a fulfilling/rewarding career, as it

was reported more often by the Boomer respondents. Instead, we are left to wonder if these


13/29

13

statistics are an artifact of these particular survey respondents. Although this trend will be more

closely examined if additional responses contribute to it, we are hesitant to attribute this

phenomenon to any generational differences. However, these results confirm one of our

standing hypotheses - that Boomers are significantly more likely to attribute their career

motivation to the pursuit of public service. The potential connections between this and other

findings is discussed later.

Responses to thepolicy concerns question (What are five policy areas that you plan to

focus on throughout your career?) are much more diffuse, but do indicate some striking trends.

Although approximately 40 response categories were identified, the top eight are reported in

Table 2.

Table 2 - Age Group Statistical Comparisons of Policy Priority

ResponsesSorted by Boomers and Xers

# of Boomer

Responses

# of Xer

Responses

ANOVA

(F-Test)

Pearson

Chi-SquareCramers V

Policy Areas

Economic Development 11 11 .219 - -

Personnel/Labor Relations 8 9 .008 - -Infrastructure 9 4 3.846* 3.714* .267*

Budget/Finance 14 12 1.220 - -Environmental Concerns 7 1 7.147*** 6.504** .354*

Quality Service Delivery 4 7 .523 - -Public Safety 1 4 1.508 - -

Civic Engagement 5 7 .122 - -

N = 52* = significant at .1 level

** = significant at .05 level*** = significant at .01 level

As might be expected, the emphasis across the profession on economic development,

budget/finance, and personnel/labor relations is reflected here. These three most popular


14/29

14

responses do not vary significantly across the two age cohorts. However, we do find that

Boomers place significantly more emphasis on infrastructure and environmental issues.

The instrument also included a question about theprofessional values managers bring to

their craft. Specifically, we asked What are three values that you consider important to a

successful career in municipal management? Again, answers were varied, and we recorded a

total of 32 discernable responses. Five values were cited by more than five participants, and they

are listed in Table 4. Here we observe a great deal of continuity between the two groups.

Regardless of generation, respondents highlight the importance of honesty/integrity, a

commitment to public service, and dedication as important professional values. At the same

time, the Boomer respondents are significantly more likely to cite ethics and a commitment to

continuing education and knowledge than their GX counterparts. Unfortunately, our theoretical

framework provides not explanation for the knowledge responses. However, it does capture the

results of the ethics question. That connection will be explained in greater detail later.

Table 3 - Age Group Statistical Comparisons of Values ResponsesSorted by Boomers and Xers

# of Boomer

Responses

# of Xer

Responses

ANOVA

(F-Test)

Pearsons

Chi-SquareCramers V

Values

Ethics 11 6 3.606* 3.498* .259*

Honesty/Integrity 7 14 2.345 - -Public Service 5 7 .122 - -

Dedication 5 7 .122 - -Knowledge/Intellect 8 3 3.843* 3.709* .270*

N = 52

* = significant at .1 level** = significant at .05 level


15/29

15

Finally, these results allow us to conduct a longitudinal comparison of respondents

perceptions ofstability and changing roles within the city management profession. Our

questionnaire included several questions included in two previous surveys of city managers,

conducted in 1994 and 1998 (Bresner 1999). This nationwide survey of 245 and 178 city

managers revealed two striking trends. Beginning in 1994, only 35% of responding managers

considered the city management profession as stable as in the five previous years. However,

these results reverse themselves in 1998, as roughly the same number (33%) saw the field as less

stable. The shifting roles question also lends empirical support to the now widely-held belief

that the traditional politics-administration dichotomy has shifted in some way. Although

managers seem to disagree on the exact nature and direction of that shift varied, these data show

more and more individuals subscribing to the notion of a changing role. Therefore, given these

results, we were presented with a unique opportunity to extend the analysis an additional four

years. We also modified the shifting roles question to include assistant managers perceptions

of shifts within the assistant ranks.

As shown in Table 5, our results are unable to confirm or reject the previously identified

trends in these data. Although 41.5% of our respondents perceive the field to be less stable than

it was when they entered the profession, the outstanding 35.8% prohibits us from drawing any

further conclusions. The same holds true for the shifting roles item, as 32.1% of our respondents

remain outstanding. For good measure, we conducted an ANOVA test of the responses to these

items between the Boomer and GX groups within our sample, and the statistically significant

result of this test for the stability question indicates a possible difference in perception on this

item between our two survey groups. Like many of the other findings noted here, this statistic

may warrant further attention in the future.


16/29

16

Table 4 - Longitudinal Comparisons of City Manager and Assistant City

Manager ResponsesPercent of Total Responses

Na

= 245

Nb

= 178Nc = 52

* = significant at .1 level

Discussion

In general, these results provide evidence of a Generation X effect with regard to

specific motivations, policy priorities, and professional values among todays management

assistants. We attribute these differences in part to GXs increased emphasis on pragmatism and

flexibility in government. The importance of public service, environmental policy, and

professional ethics, for instance, appear to be downplayed by the GX respondents. Each of these

trends seems in line with this generations hypothesized emphasis on pragmatism, since each

represents an absolute standard of some kind. Where Boomers seem to have equated public

service with a sense of altruism or civic duty, GX does not seem compelled by, or

1994 CityManagers

a

1998 CityManagers

b

2002 Asst. CityManagers

c

ANOVA (F-Test)between 2002 Xers

and Boomers

Stable?

As Stable 35 66 20.8 .081*Less Stable 63 33 41.5

Unknown/N.A. 2 1 35.8Changing CM Role?

Change 63 81 34 .311No Change 29 15 32.1

Unknown/N.A. 8 4 32.1Changing ACM Role?

Change - - 32.1 .263No Change - - 34

Unknown/N.A. - - 32.1


17/29

17

accustomed to a purely public service provider role for local government. As a result, this

finding seems absolutely congruent with our expectations, given that GX has grown up without

the formerly clear boundaries between the public, private, and non-profit sectors. Todays

emphasis on entrepreneurial, risk-taking, and other pragmatic government practices

(Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Osborne and Plasterik 1997) also reinforce the GX experience with

local government. Today, more than ever, it is extremely difficult to delineate between public

service, and a career in government, and as a result, GXs decreased emphasis on public service

motivations does not come as a surprise. The same logic applies to the findings for

environmental policy. While counterintuitive to our common understanding of GXs

environmental efficacy, it may be that management assistants from this generation see local

governments role in implementing environmental policy very differently from the Boomer

predecessors. Potential explanations may include the matching of environmental policy with

economic development policy (i.e. brownfield remediation, TIF utilization, etc.), the tremendous

growth of federal and state-managed environmental policies (i.e. Superfund, Coastal

Management Zones, etc.), and the increasingly important role of non-profits and non-

governmental organizations in the environmental arena. As a result, it seems local governments

role in addressing environmental concerns may be diminishing, and assistants responses reflect

this sentiment. Another potential explanation, exemplified by the recycling is garbage debate

(Tierney 1996), may also be playing out in these responses.8

The infrastructure results are curious for a number of reasons. On the one hand, they may

indicate a previously identified change in the profession. Where city managers, especially in

smaller communities were once expected to have extensive technical knowledge of public works

and transportation, todays manager may instead rely on infrastructure experts for technical


18/29

18

advice. The shift may also be further evidence of the shifting role of professional administration

from managers to facilitators of public service delivery (Nalbandian 1999). It may also be a

function of specialization, professionalization, and the blending of our traditional politics-

administration dichotomy model (Svara 1998; Kettl 2000; Cleveland 2000). In any case, it

appears todays assistants may be de-emphasizing this previously critical policy area.

At the same time, we are hesitant to generalize beyond the survey population at this time

for primarily two reasons. The first, as previously discussed, is the limitations of these data.

Although we plan to expand the survey population and sample size in the future, the present data

serve more of an exploratory role than an attempt to authoritatively answer these questions.

The second hesitation is due to the appearance of consensus on several of the most popular

responses to each question. For example, both generations seem to agree on the importance of

visible difference as a motivating factor, budget/finance and economic development as key

policy areas, and honesty/integrity as professional values. Without a doubt, these have been and

remain critical considerations of public administrators, regardless of age. As a result, it seems

that the generational differences we observe are present and important, but far more nuanced

than previously imagined.

Conclusion

These results indicate a clear challenge for future public administration scholarship. As

shown in this initial research commentary, the Generation X experience appears to have very

stylized, but significant impacts on public administration in the future. In the context of public

policy, the boundaries of that impact are yet unclear, and future research should attempt to trace

the GX effect in specific policy areas. For example, this work has spawned the hypothesis that


19/29

19

tomorrows managers, having grown up in an era of federal and state involvement in

environmental policy, seem to place less emphasis on local responsibilities. The same holds true

for traditional infrastructure concerns, which are also characterized today by an increasing

federal and state presence. Are there other areas in which the same effect might be observed?

Further, we must consider the prospect that todays managers are more likely to participate in the

policymaking process, primarily through opportunities that most federal and state agencies

provide local officials. Rather than simply implementing policy, it may be the case that GX

managers will be more willing to take part in its formulation.

The responses to the value question, which support the contention that GX is more

inclined to pragmatism, also pose some interesting challenges to public administration practice

and education. Given the fields emphasis on ethics, public service, performance measures, and

other standards, these results reveal a potential challenge to our current direction. Rather than

abiding by ethical or other absolute standards, it may be the case that some GXers promulgate

different guidelines based on personal conviction, community directives (in a sort of revival of

the politics-administration dichotomy), long-term policy concerns, or some other source. In

general, this finding may indicate an increased role for post-modernism in public administration

(Fox and Miller 1995; Denhardt 2001), a notion that seems contrary to much of the fields

current activity.

In any case, these results are initial and exploratory, and should be treated as such.

Ideally, future work will stake out the precise role that generational differences, especially

among GX, play in the art and craft of public administration. We have attempted here to provide

early answers to this interesting and important research question.


20/29

20

Notes

1. This is not to say, however, that public affairs scholars have ignored the GX phenomenon, orthe study of generations broadly conceived. Interestingly enough, Elazar (1976) explored therole of generations in political socialization in the late stages of his career. Generations have

also been the differentiating factor in a wide range of studies on subjects such as fiscal policy(MacMannus 1995), Social Security privatization (Lips 1998), electoral participation (Lyons and

Alexander 2000), and philanthropy (Marcus 2000). Specifically in public administration, theUniversity of Nebraska-Omaha recently launched a study exploring the new demands Generation

X will likely place on public administration education. These results, according to the authors,may reveal a number of modifications that will need to be made to MPA programs across the

field (UN-Omaha 2000). In all, generational phenomena have occupied a limited, but importantplace in the literature.

2. A few aspects of the sample population are worth noting. Municipal Management Assistants

includes the following occupational titles: assistant city/village/town/townshipmanager/administrator, assistant to the city/village/town/township manager/administrator,

administrative assistant to the city/village/town/township manager/administrator, administrativeanalyst, budget analyst, and management analyst. In spite of this variation, survey respondents

were screened according to their self-reported primary job duties. Those with duties fallingoutside the general purview of municipal management were excluded from the sample.

The choice of Wisconsin and Southern California is somewhat strategic. Both states have

established assistant associations, which facilitated the production of a mailing list and allowedfor variation in demographic, political, and socioeconomic characteristics of local government

within the sample. Clearly, California and Wisconsin are very different with regard to theseconsiderations. Another key variation is the role of the associations themselves and their

potentially socializing effect. In California, the Municipal Management Assistants of SouthernCalifornia have been established for more than 50 years, and currently boast a membership of

more than 400 drawn almost exclusively from 12 counties in Californias far southern region.Wisconsins organization, the Wisconsin Association of Municipal and County Management

Assistants was chartered in 2001, and currently includes less than 50 members statewide. As aresult, we find variation in the effect the professional association is likely to have on assistants

values and perceptions of their profession.

3. However, our ability to generalize about public administration as a whole may be limited dueto city managements unique professional culture.

4. Technically speaking, the instrument was sent as a MS Word attachment to an electronic mail

message composed and sent using Microsoft Outlook. Respondents were asked to open theattached survey instrument, add their answers, and return the document to an e-mail address

designated for completed surveys. Both the text of the e-mail message and the attached surveycontained a cover letter from the authors describing the project and instructions to facilitate


21/29

21

participation. Although the decision to utilize electronic mail instead of traditional paper mailwas primarily due to cost considerations, many of the survey respondents expressed appreciation

for the convenience offered by the paperless format. In addition, unlike a paper instrument,this format facilitates follow-up and repeat mailings equally well. At the present, no follow-up

mailing has occurred, and we are confident our overall response rate will increase several more

percentage points as a result. At the same time, it can be argued that the electronic formatreduces the generalizabilty of the sample population given that it excludes those communitiesthat do not use electronic communication as well as individual assistants who are either not able

or not willing to rely on computer-based communications. In any case, we are satisfied with thesuccess of this format, plan to utilize it in future research, and recommend it to other scholars.

5. It is worth noting that the survey population has been recently expanded to include northern

California, and will likely include several other states in the future.

6. In its annual State of the Profession Survey series, the ICMA typically asks respondents torate the importance of a series of issues to their jurisdiction on a 1 to 5 scale. Approximately

30 policy areas are included in a given year, and the index is modified annually to reflect currentconcerns.

7. The response population was also evenly split between males (48%) and females (52%).

Responses were also proportional to the number of surveys sent to each of the four states. Mostrespondents were from CA (76%), followed by WI (13%), OH (7%), and NY (3%).

8. A 1996 (Tierney)New York Times Magazine discussed the emerging rational choice or

cost benefit perspective on environmental policy. In short, it argues that landfill and otherwaste disposal technology has advanced to the point that the garbage produced by the entire

nation could be disposed of in a guaranteed safe landfill covering only few square miles. At thesame time, recycling technology has advanced at a much slower rate, making it inferior to

traditional waste disposal in a cost-benefit analysis. The author, and many who oppose theenvironmental lobbys well-entrenched stance, argue that consumers and local governments will

soon begin to find recyclings altruistic benefits outweighed by the falling cost of waste disposal.Again, the potential for pragmatism is well-demonstrated.


22/29

22

References

Beh, Andrew. 1996. Generations and Political Science: The Importance of Taking Time

Seriously. Paper presented at the Political Science Association Annual Conference,

Glasgow, April 9-12th, 1996. Available: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~psd/1996/beh.htm

Bennett, Steven Earl and Rademacher, Eric. 1997. The Disengaged Few. In Craig,

Stephen and Bennett, Steven Earl, eds.After the Boom: The Politics of Generation X(Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield).

Bresner, Kurt. 1999. Voices from City Hall: Results from Two National Surveys of Our

Profession.Public Management81(11): 14-20.

Cleveland, John Y. 2000. Changing Role of City Manager: Electoral Systems, PoliticalLinkages, and Role Legitimacy (Doctor of Public Administration Dissertation, Arizona

State University)

Corley, T. 1999. Becoming an Employer of Choice for Generation X: The Elements of theDeal.Journal of Career Planning and Employment(Summer: 21-16).

Coupland, Douglass. 1991. Tales of an Accelerated Culture (New York: Bantam Books).

Cunningham, Robert and Weschler, Louis. 2002. Theory and the Public Administration

Student/Practitioner.Public Administration Review 62(1): 104-109.

Denhardt, Robert. 2001. The Big Questions of Public Administration Education. PublicAdministration Review 61(5): 526-534.

Elazar, Daniel J. 1976. The Generational Rhythm of American Politics (Philadelphia: Center

for the Study of Federalism).

Eng, S. 1996. Managers Learn How Best to Motivate Generation X Workers.Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News (10 April: 410).

Fox, Charles J. and Miller, Hugh T. 1995.Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse

(Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications).

Goldberg, Jonah. 2000. X Marked the Spot.National Review 52, no. 12: 27-28.

Halstead, Ted. 1999. A Politics for Generation X.Atlantic Monthly (August: 33-42).

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2000. Coming of Age, Seeking an Identity. The New York Times.3/8/00, H1.


23/29

23

Holtz, Geoffrey T. 1995. Welcome to the Jungle: The Why Behind Generation X(New York: St.Martins Press).

Jurkiewicz, Carol J. 2000. Generation X and the Public Employee.Public Personnel

Management29(1): 55-75.

Jurkiewicz, Carol J. and Brown, Roger G. 1998. GenXers vs. Boomers vs. Matures:Generational Comparisons of Public Employee Motivation.Review of Public Personnel

Administration (18-37).

Katznelson, Ira. 1982. City Trenches (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Kettl, Donald. 2000. Public Administration at the Millenium: The State of the Field.Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory 10(1): 7-35.

Lips, Carrie. 1998. Generation X May Make Social Security Privatization a Winner. Cato

Institute Daily Updates. Available at http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-13-98.html.

Loysk, Bob. 1997a. How to Manage Xers.Public Management79(12): 6-7.

____. 1997b. Generation X: What They Think and What They Plan to Do.Public Management79(12): 4-9.

Lyons, William and Alexander, Robert. 2000. A Tale of Two Electorates: Generational

Replacement and the Decline of Voting in Presidential Elections.Journal of Politics62(4): 1014-1035.

MacMannus, Susan. 1995. Taxing and Spending Politics: A Generational Perspective.Journal

of Politics 51(3): 607-629.

Mannheim, Karl (ed. Paul Kecskemeti). 1952.Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge(New York: Oxford University Press).

Marcus, David L. 2000. Generation X Turns out to be Generous. U.S. News & World Report

128(7): 54-55.

Marias, Julian. 1961. Ortega and the Idea of Vital Reason.Dublin Review 222(45): 56-79.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination (London and New York: OxfordUniversity Press).

Morrison, David A. 1999. Targeting Twentysomethings: Strategies that Work(New York:

Bantam Books).

Nalbandian, John. 1999. Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for LocalGovernment Managers.Public Administration Review 59(3): 187-197.


24/29

24

OBannon, Gary. 2001. Managing Our Future: The Generation X Factor.Public Personnel

Management30(1): 95-109.

Ortega y Gasset, Jose. 1962.Man and Crisis (New York: R.W. Norton).

Osborne, David and Gaebler, Ted. 1992.Reinventing Government: How the EntrepreneurialSpirit is Transforming America (New York: Penguin Books.)

Osborne, David and Plasterik, Peter. 1997.Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for

Reinventing Government(New York: Bantam)

Svara, James. 1998. The Politics-Administration Dichotomy Model as Aberration.PublicAdministration Review 58(1): 51-58.

Tierney, John. 1996. Recycling is Garbage.New York Times Magazine 145(50474): 24-33.

Tulgan, B. 1999. The Managers Pocket Guide to Generation X(Minneapolis: The Lakewood

Publications).

University of Nebraska-Omaha. 2000. Generation X and Public Administration Education:Overview of the Project. Available at

http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwpa/genx/overview_of_the_project.html.

Wah, Louisa. 2000. Managing GenXers Strategically.Management Review 89(3): 6.

Zemke, Ron, Raines, Claire, and Filipczak, Bob. 2000. Generations at Work: Managing theClash of Veterans, Boomers, Eers, and Nexters in Your Workplace (New York: Anacom).


25/29

25

Appendix A Survey Instrument

March 4, 2002

Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeP.O. Box 413, Bolton Hall 674Milwaukee, WI 53201

Dear Municipal Management Assistant,

Currently, faculty and students in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukeeare conducting a nationwide study of the values and attitudes of municipal management assistants. We wouldgreatly appreciate you taking the time to participate in this study by completing the attached questionnaire. Werealize the value of your time, and have constructed the instrument, which contains questions about your past,current, and expected future experiences, to be completed in only a few minutes. After completing thequestionnaire, please e-mail it, as an attachment or as the text of an e-mail message to [email protected].

We consider this project to be a very unique and important inquiry for primarily two reasons. First, it providesyou as a management assistant the opportunity to describe the challenges you face in your often neglected butcritical role. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it will provide us with important insights into the professions

future direction.

This survey is also unique in that it is being conducted exclusively through electronic mail. Please be assuredthat your responses are completely anonymous, will remain confidential, and will only be reported on anaggregate basis.

Thank you in advance for your participation. At your request, we will be more than happy to provide the resultsof this study. Please feel free to contact us at (414) 229-2369 with any questions or comments you may have.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Eger, Ph.D. Deborah A. Kndson Justin MarloweAssistant Professor Ph.D. Student Ph.D. Student

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Political Science DepartmentMunicipal Management Assistant Survey

This survey addresses municipal governments, which for our purposes includes cities, villages, towns, townships,and all other forms of local government.

Demographic Information:

Gender: Male____ Female_____

Year born:

Which of the following degrees have you earned?:(check all that apply)

High school diploma/G.E.D. _____ Associates Degree _____- in what field? ______________

Bachelor of Science _____ Bachelor of Arts _____- in what field? ________________ - in what field? ________________

Public Manager Certification _____ Master of Arts _____- in what field? ________________

Master of Public Administration _____ J.D. _____


26/29

26

Appendix A (cont.)

Ph.D. _____ Other: _______________________- in what field? _____________

How many years have you worked in municipal government in some capacity, including time spent in internships orother part-time or non-paid positions? _____

What is your current title? __________________________________

Please list and briefly describe five of your primary duties in your current position:

How many years have you been in your current position? _____

What is the population of the municipality where you are currently employed? _____________

Before being hired in your current position, what other employment and training experiences did you have? (check allthat apply)

_____ assistant manager_____ administrative assistant

_____ internship(s) with municipal government(s)_____ internship(s) with federal or state government agency_____ full-time position(s) with federal or state agency_____ internship(s) in the non-profit sector_____ full-time position(s) in the non-profit sector_____ full-time position(s) in the private sector_____ other: __________________________________ none

Short Answer Questions:

1. What do you consider your top three reasons for pursuing a career in municipal management?

2. In your experience, is the current focus of elected boards and commissions in local government onpromoting the common good or on promoting special interests? Please explain.

3. One aspect of civic infrastructure in a community is the quality of the citizen volunteers who serve onadvisory boards. In your experience, is finding qualified citizens to serve on these advisory boards aproblem? Why or why not?

4. In your opinion, has the assistant managers role in the municipal management profession changed sinceyour entered the field? Please explain.

5. In your opinion, has the managers role in the municipal management profession changed since you enteredthe field? Please explain.

6. Since you entered the profession, has municipal management become more or less stable? Please explain.

7. Do you plan to some day become the chief administrative officer (i.e. city manager/administrator) of amunicipal government?

Yes _________ No ___________ Undecided _________

8. What are 5 policy areas that you plan to focus on throughout your career? Please list them in order ofimportance.

9. In your opinion, what are the 5 most important policy areas that will face municipal managers and municipalmanagement as a profession in the future? Please list them in order of importance.

10. What are three values that you consider most important to a successful career in municipal management?


27/29

27

Appendix B Survey Responses

1. What do you consider your top three reasons for pursuing a career in municipal management?

- categories receiving more than 5 responses are reported in Table 2 above

public service benefits/stability/security belief in local control

emphasis on merit variety of the work immediate/visible differencesense of accomplishment similar previous experience uniqueness of the job

interest/talent in government contact with the local community passion

opportunity to work w/ people challenging work no profit margin to protect

growth/personal potential personality fit mentoring/encouragement to do so

improve governments image

8. What are 5 policy areas that you plan to focus on throughout your career? Please list them inorder of importance.

- categories receiving more than 5 responses are reported in Table 3 above

infrastructure quality of life environment

budget/finance technology/IT performance measurement/management

organization development project/program management none (elected officials make policy)constituency service cost effectiveness federal/state mandates

leadership planning/land use economic development/redevelopment

employee/labor relations public safety recreation/culture

public/private partnerships intergovernmental relations housing

civic engagement efficiency ethics

service delivery balancing needs and demands tax equityemergency management lobbying/advocacy manager/council relations

legislative analysis policy development neighborhood issues

rebuilding trust ensuring long-term viability

10. What are three values that you consider most important to a successful career in municipal

management?- categories receiving more than 5 responses are reported in Table 4 above

perseverance honesty/integrity knowledge/intelligence

flexibility efficiency caring/compassion

ethics loyalty communication

motivation professional/educational breadth responsiveness

sensitivity fairness professionalism

respect humor organization

deference service/public interest vision/long-term outlookcooperation personal satisfaction maintaining public trust

hard working multi-tasking energy/positive outlook

challenging leadership focus

passion/dedication balance


28/29

28

(UN-Omaha 2000). In all, generational phenomena have occupied a limited, but important place in the literature.2 A few aspects of the sample population are worth noting. Municipal Management Assistants includes the

following occupational titles: assistant city/village/town/township manager/administrator, assistant to the

city/village/town/township manager/administrator, administrative assistant to the city/village/town/townshipmanager/administrator, administrative analyst, budget analyst, and management analyst. In spite of this variation,

survey respondents were screened according to their self-reported primary job duties. Those with duties falling

outside the general purview of municipal management were excluded from the sample. The choice of Wisconsin

and Southern California is somewhat strategic. Both states have established assistant associations, which facilitated

the production of a mailing list and allowed for variation in demographic, political, and socioeconomic

characteristics of local government within the sample. Clearly, California and Wisconsin are very different with

regard to these considerations. Another key variation is the role of the associations themselves and their potentially

socializing effect. In California, the Municipal Management Assistants of Southern California have beenestablished for more than 50 years, and currently boast a membership of more than 400 drawn almost exclusively

from 12 counties in Californias far southern region. Wisconsins organization, the Wisconsin Association of

Municipal and County Management Assistants was chartered in 2001, and currently includes less than 50 members

statewide. As a result, we find variation in the effect the professional association is likely to have on assistantsvalues and perceptions of their profession.

3 However, our ability to generalize about public administration as a whole may be limited due to city managements

unique professional culture.4 Technically speaking, the instrument was sent as a MS Word attachment to an electronic mail message composedand sent using Microsoft Outlook. Respondents were asked to open the attached survey instrument, add their


29/29

29

answers, and return the document to an e-mail address designated for completed surveys. Both the text of the e-mail

message and the attached survey contained a cover letter from the authors describing the project and instructions to

facilitate participation. Although the decision to utilize electronic mail instead of traditional paper mail wasprimarily due to cost considerations, many of the survey respondents expressed appreciation for the convenience

offered by the paperless format. In addition, unlike a paper instrument, this format facilitates follow-up and repeat

mailings equally well. At the present, no follow-up mailing has occurred, and we are confident our overall responserate will increase several more percentage points as a result. At the same time, it can be argued that the electronic

format reduces the generalizabilty of the sample population given that it excludes those communities that do not use

electronic communication as well as individual assistants who are either not able or not willing to rely on computer-

based communications. In any case, we are satisfied with the success of this format, plan to utilize it in future

research, and recommend it to other scholars.5

In its State of the Profession Survey series, the ICMA typically asks respondents to rate the importance of aseries of issues to their jurisdiction on a 1 to 5 scale. Approximately 30 policy areas are included in a given year,

and the index is modified annually to reflect current concerns.6 It is worth noting that the survey population has been recently expanded to include northern California, and will

likely include several other states in the future.78 A 1999New York Times Magazine article framed the environmental policy debate from a very rational choice

perspective. In short, it argues that even though a substantial portion of GX was socialized to believe environmental

preservation was a somewhat altruistic pursuit, todays environmental policymakers realize..XXXXXXXX

values of tomorrow's city managers

Documents