Conference Agenda

Research suggests that civil servants’ role perceptions significantly influence their behavior and performance (Parker, 2007; van der Meer, 2024; van der Meer et al., 2023). At the same time, evolving public management paradigms emphasize that these roles are shifting—from traditional implementers and managers to facilitators of democratic participation and service co-production (Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015; Torfing et al., 2019), advocates for the disenfranchised, and/or ‘servants’ of the public good and the broader public interest (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000; O’Leary, 2019; Schnell & Gerard, 2023). These evolving roles are garnering even more attention now, in the context of global democratic backsliding, which has intensified scrutiny of how civil servants can safeguard democratic values when these are under pressure. (Bauer, 2024). Yet, such a democratic role perception is difficult to conceptualize and measure in part due to a lack of consensus on what it entails— that is, varying interpretations of civil servants’ place in a democratic system (Bertelli & Schwartz, 2023; Stewart, 1985).

Empirical evidence shows that some civil servants indeed adopt role perceptions that extend beyond classic bureaucratic or managerial values. These include roles such as proactive administrators or stewards of the public interest (Selden et al., 1999), promoters of societal self-organization (civic action) (van der Steen et al., 2018), or as professionals whose loyalty is foremost to serving society and its citizens rather than political principals (de Graaf, 2011). However, such studies are mostly qualitative—often based on Q-sorts—and typically limited to specific subsets of actors, most often senior civil servants, which constrains their generalizability. Conversely, existing quantitative research that develops measurement scales has largely focused on bureaucratic and managerial roles, overlooking the democratic dimensions of public service (van der Meer et al., 2024).

This paper addresses this gap by developing a theoretical framework informed by both normative theories of civil servants’ democratic roles and empirical findings on how civil servants perceive their roles. It focuses on role perceptions with democratic valence—those that transcend traditional implementer or managerial conceptions. The paper then proposes a set of survey items designed to capture these democratic role perceptions and tests them through an online survey. The instrument includes both democratic and traditional role perception items, the latter based on van der Meer et al. (2024). Confirmatory Factor Analysis is used to assess their convergent and discriminant validity. The results offer a foundation for further comparative research on democratic role perceptions and their influence on civil servant behavior.

Contemporary societies are confronted with poly crises, from climate to polarization and the lack of trust in governance. The challenges for the public domain are abound. Underlying these poly crises is a profound normative crisis in which the moral foundations that weave together society are increasingly questioned and challenged. From frontline public officials to political and administrative elites, this is visible in shifting normative expectations and increasing moral complexity in dealing with the value conflicts these imply. At the same time, the room to manoeuvre moral decision-making capacity is debated and administrators have questions on how to deal with normativity in daily practice, including the scope of their moral responsibility and how or when they can or perhaps even should deploy it.

This has important implications for how the public task is practiced. It creates tensions in the role and enactment of moral responsibility in public governance and requires a rethinking of how to manage that. In this paper, our argument is that this requires moral craftsmanship, as a form of an enduring, shared and relational process in daily practices, routines and discourses. Building on Thompson’s conceptualization of moral responsibility and broader literatures on ethics management, moral decision making and administrative behavior, we seek to explore how we may define and understand moral craftsmanship in administrative practice. The aim of this paper is to further conceptualize moral craftmanship both on an individual and collective level and delineate what it contributes to current understandings of moral responsibility within public administration. We end this paper by formulating a research agenda for further empirical exploration and further developing conceptual understandings of moral craftmanship.

Abstract EGPA, Glasgow 26 – 29 August 2025, PSG VII Ethics & Integrity

Abstract

In recent years, various scholars have shown increased interest into administrative craftmanship (Rhodes, 2016; t’ Hart, 2014; Van Dorp, 2022). Normative as well as empirical contributions assess which ethics, values and skills (should) make up this craftmanship. A key issue underpinning this debate is whether public servants are sufficiently equipped to deal with the complexities and challenges of 21st-century public administration (Raadschelders et al., 2007; Van der Wal, 2017), and whether traditional or new crafts and competencies should be emphasized in training and development, and administrative behavior (Kerkhoff & Moschopoulos 2023; Needham and Mangan, 2016; Rhodes 2016). However, as debates about craftmanship are broad and diverse, it often remains unclear what the concept actually entails. This is largely due to the inherently contextual and subjective nature of the concept. In addition, most work on the topic is normative rather than empirical or theoretically explanatory, and studies predominantly focus on public managers; the upper echelons of bureaucracy (e.g., Van Dorp, 2022; Van der Wal, 2017). These gaps in the literature necessitate a clearer empirical measurement of how different types of public servants define, appreciate, and experience craftmanship. During last year’s EGPA conference in Athens, we presented our report to the Dutch Ministry of the Interior, on the results of a large-scale survey among 3700 Dutch public servants, employed at eleven ministries and three large executive agencies. The representative sample covered a wide range of types and positions across the four domains of the Dutch national civil service: policy, implementation, inspection and business operations. This year, we aim to convert the empirical results from the report into an academic paper that focuses more on conceptual and theoretical questions. As such, we use the empirical data in an attempt to close some gaps in the literature on this important and growing topic in the areas of political science, public administration and ethics (e.g Heath, 2020; Hirschman, 1972, Peters et al. 2021; Van der Meer & Dijkstra 2021; Yesilkagit et al, 2024; Hart 2001). First, we aim to finetune the concept of Public Service Craftmanship (i.e. how does this relate to values and skills that are deemed appropriate and important for public servants?). Second, we further explore theoretical connections between changing perceptions of craftmanship and various external and internal factors in a demanding public (societal, political and bureaucratic) environment. Thirdly, we focus on theoretical discussions surrounding the question how internal management together with employees can develop, foster and sustain an organizational environment in which craftmanship (including contradiction, speaking up, etc.) gains meaning and can grow further.