Mandarins versus Machiavellians? On Differences between Work Motivations of Administrative and Political Elites

• Author: Zeger van der Wal
• Date: 01 September 2013
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12089

Zeger van der Wal is associate profes-

sor in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public

Policy, National University of Singapore.

His research interests include public and

private sector values, behavior and attitudes

of government elites, good governance,

and public service motivation. His work has

been published in Public Administration

Review, Public Administration,

American Review of Public

Administration, Administration &

Society, Public Management Review,

Public Personnel Management,

Journal of Business Ethics, and Public

Integrity.

E-mail: sppzvdw@nus.edu.sg

Mandarins versus Machiavellians? On Differences between Work Motivations of Administrative and Political Elites 749

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 73, Iss. 5, pp. 749–759. © 2013 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12089.

Zeger van der Wal

National University of Singapore, Singapore

 is article explores how work motivations dif‌f er between

administrative and political elites, based on 94 qualita-

tive interviews conducted in the Netherlands, European

Union, and United States. Both elite groups are prima-

rily motivated in their initial choice of public service

by wanting to contribute to, serve, or improve society;

job content, career opportunities, political ideals, and

personal background are also important motivators. Once

in public service, serving society remains important, but

politicians dif‌f er from public managers in that they want

to have a big impact and bring about actual societal

change, and they consider themselves best equipped to

do so, whereas the latter value intellectually stimulating

work more than anything else. Motivational categories

for both groups are relatively stable across institutional

settings.  eorizing on the results, the author of‌f ers seven

propositions for future research.  is article contributes to

the research on motivation in the public domain by using

qualitative methodology and including politicians.

Why should we care about the motivations

of those who govern us? We should care,

in the words of Rhodes, “because the deci-

sions of the great and the good af‌f ect all our lives for

good or ill” (2011, 1). More specif‌i cally, individually

and together, political and administrative elites have

the most substantial impact on “what gets proposed

for consideration by governments, what gets passed

into law, and how law gets implemented” (Aberbach,

Putnam, and Rockman 1981, 24).  erefore, gain-

ing insight into their ulterior

motives and motivations is para-

mount, particularly when popu-

list forces continuously question

and scrutinize such motives.

Indeed, negative cliché-type

imagery of opportunistic,

Machiavellian “of‌f‌i ce seekers”

craving power and status versus

conservative, self-interested

“technocrats” motivated by job security and regular

of‌f‌i ce hours has long dominated both popular and

academic discourse (Niskanen 1971; Schlesinger

1966; Tullock 1976). However, the recent prolifera-

tion of studies of public service motivation (PSM)

emphasizing altruism and a desire to work for the

greater good ref‌l ects a countermovement to this cyni-

cal discourse (Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise 2010).

So far, however, PSM research has focused exclusively

on public employees and neglected politicians (Ritz

2011, 3). Moreover, despite their obvious relevance,

studies that compare the work motivations of senior

politicians and administrators, or “government elites”

(Rhodes 2011; Rhodes, Hart, and Noordegraaf 2007),

are completely absent. In our study, we do not aim to

f‌i nd out what government elites do and how they do

this (cf. Rhodes 2011), but rather why they chose to

answer the call of public service in the f‌i rst place and

continue to do so within the most powerful echelons

of government.

In particular, we want to compare whether political

elites, on the one hand, and administrative elites, on

the other, dif‌f er in how they motivate their initial

choice for government and the acquiescence of their

current function. We do so by analyzing qualitative

in-depth interview data from a convenience sample

of 94 (former) government elites in three promi-

nent Western “centers of power”: the Netherlands,

European Union (EU), and United States.1 We pro-

vide “an asset to the body of research” on motivation

in the public domain because

such “thick data” allow us to

develop “more shades of grey”

(Vandenabeele 2008, 302).

Our exploratory study seeks to

answer the following central

research question: How do ini-

tial and current work motivations

dif‌f er between politicians and

public managers?

Answering this question is relevant, as recent dynam-

ics in professional contexts and role conceptions

Mandarins versus Machiavellians? On Dif‌f erences between

Work Motivations of Administrative and Political Elites

Our exploratory study seeks to

answer the following central

research question: How do ini-

tial and current work motivations

dif‌f er between politicians and

public managers?