Exploring the (Generation) X Factor: Survey Results on the Values of Tomorrows City Managers

by Deborah A. Knudson, Ph.D. Student dknudson@uwm.edu Justin Marlowe, Ph.D. Student (presenter) jmarlowe@uwm.edu

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, AZ March 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, this generations heightened emphasis on pragmatism, political disengagement, techno literacy, flexibility, entrepreneurship, and other values may have significant effects on all aspects of public life, especially public administration. However, most examinations of these value differences have been anecdotal and journalistic rather than empirical. In this paper, we attempt to provide a methodologically sound commentary on the presence or absence of this conflict within one specialty city management by systematically collecting comments from todays management 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 then compared to similar, longitudinal results from another city management survey. With sound empirical 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 Please do not cite or reproduce any portion of this paper without the consent of the authors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 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 moments such as the civil rights movement, the Anti-Vietnam campaign, and Woodstock, Xers seem more inclined to make a small-scale difference in their local communities. This fact is evidenced by record high levels of community service (Halstead 1999) as well renewed interest in government sponsored service programs such as Americorps (Hochschild 2000) and President Bushs recently commissioned Freedom Corps. The focal point of their collective identity, according to some, is their emphasis on tolerance, flexibility, and tempered efficacy. What will result from GX inheriting our public institutions is unclear at the moment. Unlike their Baby Boomer predecessors, who were perceived as activist and inspired in the political context, Xers have been described predominantly as cynical of and disengaged from public institutions. In terms of electoral politics, GXs efficacy have ranged from care-free, and mostly apathetic, to entirely disdainful of the political process, all of which are reflected in record low voting turnouts and consistently declining party membership (Halstead 1999). Regardless of the accuracy of these descriptions, political scientists and public administration scholars have paid limited attention to the GXs collective political or policy efficacy.1 As a result, we know very little about what impact, if any, GX will have on American politics and public administration in the future. Despite the lack of any shared understanding in the context of political behavior, the practical implications of GXs arrival in the workplace have received a steady stream of attention by experts in many fields. Personnel studies in both the public and private sectors have produced an extensive literature describing the unique challenges GX brings to the workplace, and how Boomers have responded to those challenges. To date, this line of research represents our best source of theoretical and empirical guidance on the subject, and it serves as the basis for the

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 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 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 or entelechyis, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Responses

Sorted by Boomers and Xers # of Boomer Responses Reasons for Career Choice Public Service Variety of Tasks/Challenges Job security/stability Work with People Visible Difference Interest/Talent Fulfilling/Rewarding Career 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 15 10 8 4 12 4 7 # of Xer ANOVA Responses (F-Test) 11 7 11 13 13 9 3 2.830* .209 .191 5.558** .064 1.639 2.881* Pearson Chi-Square 2.786* 5.202* 2.833* Cramers V .231* .316* .233*

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 the policy 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 Responses

Sorted by Boomers and Xers # of Boomer Responses Policy Areas Economic Development Personnel/Labor Relations Infrastructure Budget/Finance Environmental Concerns Quality Service Delivery Public Safety Civic Engagement 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 11 8 9 14 7 4 1 5 # of Xer Responses 11 9 4 12 1 7 4 7 ANOVA (F-Test) .219 .008 3.846* 1.220 7.147*** .523 1.508 .122 Pearson Chi-Square 3.714* 6.504** Cramers V .267* .354* -

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 the professional 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 Responses

Sorted by Boomers and Xers # of Boomer Responses Values Ethics Honesty/Integrity Public Service Dedication Knowledge/Intellect N = 52 * = significant at .1 level ** = significant at .05 level 11 7 5 5 8 # of Xer Responses 6 14 7 7 3 ANOVA (F-Test) 3.606* 2.345 .122 .122 3.843* Pearsons Chi-Square 3.498* 3.709* Cramers V .259* .270*

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

Table 4 - Longitudinal Comparisons of City Manager and Assistant City Manager Responses
Percent of Total Responses ANOVA (F-Test) between 2002 Xers and Boomers .081*

1994 City Managersa Stable? As Stable Less Stable Unknown/N.A. Changing CM Role? Change No Change Unknown/N.A. Changing ACM Role? Change No Change Unknown/N.A. Na = 245 Nb = 178 Nc = 52 * = significant at .1 level 35 63 2 63 29 8 -

1998 City Managersb 66 33 1 81 15 4 -

2002 Asst. City Managersc 20.8 41.5 35.8 34 32.1 32.1 32.1 34 32.1

.311

.263

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

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 nongovernmental 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 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 politicsadministration 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 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

Notes 1. This is not to say, however, that public affairs scholars have ignored the GX phenomenon, or the study of generations broadly conceived. Interestingly enough, Elazar (1976) explored the role 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, the University 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 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/township manager/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 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 a result, 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 due to 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 the attached 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 survey contained a cover letter from the authors describing the project and instructions to facilitate

21 participation. Although the decision to utilize electronic mail instead of traditional paper mail was 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 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. 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 to rate 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 current concerns. 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. Most respondents 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 other waste 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 the same 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 the environmental 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 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 Management 81(11): 14-20. Cleveland, John Y. 2000. Changing Role of City Manager: Electoral Systems, Political Linkages, 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 the Deal. 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. Public Administration 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. KnightRidder/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 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 Management 29(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 of Public 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 Management 79(12): 6-7. ____. 1997b. Generation X: What They Think and What They Plan to Do. Public Management 79(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 Politics 62(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: Oxford University Press). Morrison, David A. 1999. Targeting Twentysomethings: Strategies that Work (New York: Bantam Books). Nalbandian, John. 1999. Facilitating Community, Enabling Democracy: New Roles for Local Government Managers. Public Administration Review 59(3): 187-197.

24

OBannon, Gary. 2001. Managing Our Future: The Generation X Factor. Public Personnel Management 30(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 Entrepreneurial Spirit 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. Public Administration 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 the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Eers, and Nexters in Your Workplace (New York: Anacom).

25 Appendix A Survey Instrument

March 4, 2002 Department of Political Science University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee P.O. Box 413, Bolton Hall 674 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Dear Municipal Management Assistant, Currently, faculty and students in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee are conducting a nationwide study of the values and attitudes of municipal management assistants. We would greatly appreciate you taking the time to participate in this study by completing the attached questionnaire. We realize 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 the questionnaire, please e-mail it, as an attachment or as the text of an e-mail message to jmarlowe@uwm.edu. We consider this project to be a very unique and important inquiry for primarily two reasons. First, it provides you as a management assistant the opportunity to describe the challenges you face in your often neglected but critical 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 assured that your responses are completely anonymous, will remain confidential, and will only be reported on an aggregate basis. Thank you in advance for your participation. At your request, we will be more than happy to provide the results of 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. Assistant Professor Deborah A. Kndson Ph.D. Student Justin Marlowe Ph.D. Student

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Political Science Department Municipal 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____ Year born: Which of the following degrees have you earned?: (check all that apply) High school diploma/G.E.D. _____ Bachelor of Science _____ - in what field? ________________ Public Manager Certification _____ Master of Public Administration _____ Associates Degree _____ - in what field? ______________ Bachelor of Arts _____ - in what field? ________________ Master of Arts _____ - in what field? ________________ J.D. _____ Female_____

26 Appendix A (cont.)
Ph.D. _____ - in what field? _____________ Other: _______________________

How many years have you worked in municipal government in some capacity, including time spent in internships or other 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 all that 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. 2. 3. What do you consider your top three reasons for pursuing a career in municipal management? In your experience, is the current focus of elected boards and commissions in local government on promoting the common good or on promoting special interests? Please explain. One aspect of civic infrastructure in a community is the quality of the citizen volunteers who serve on advisory boards. In your experience, is finding qualified citizens to serve on these advisory boards a problem? Why or why not? In your opinion, has the assistant managers role in the municipal management profession changed since your entered the field? Please explain. In your opinion, has the managers role in the municipal management profession changed since you entered the field? Please explain. Since you entered the profession, has municipal management become more or less stable? Please explain. Do you plan to some day become the chief administrative officer (i.e. city manager/administrator) of a municipal government? Yes _________ 8. 9. No ___________ Undecided _________

4. 5. 6. 7.

What are 5 policy areas that you plan to focus on throughout your career? Please list them in order of importance. In your opinion, what are the 5 most important policy areas that will face municipal managers and municipal management 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

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 emphasis on merit sense of accomplishment interest/talent in government opportunity to work w/ people growth/personal potential improve governments image benefits/stability/security variety of the work similar previous experience contact with the local community challenging work personality fit belief in local control immediate/visible difference uniqueness of the job passion no profit margin to protect mentoring/encouragement to do so

8. What are 5 policy areas that you plan to focus on throughout your career? Please list them in order of importance. - categories receiving more than 5 responses are reported in Table 3 above
infrastructure budget/finance organization development constituency service leadership employee/labor relations public/private partnerships civic engagement service delivery emergency management legislative analysis rebuilding trust quality of life technology/IT project/program management cost effectiveness planning/land use public safety intergovernmental relations efficiency balancing needs and demands lobbying/advocacy policy development ensuring long-term viability environment performance measurement/management none (elected officials make policy) federal/state mandates economic development/redevelopment recreation/culture housing ethics tax equity manager/council relations neighborhood issues

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 flexibility ethics motivation sensitivity respect deference cooperation hard working challenging passion/dedication honesty/integrity efficiency loyalty professional/educational breadth fairness humor service/public interest personal satisfaction multi-tasking leadership balance knowledge/intelligence caring/compassion communication responsiveness professionalism organization vision/long-term outlook maintaining public trust energy/positive outlook focus

28

(UN-Omaha 2000). In all, generational phenomena have occupied a limited, but important place in the literature. 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/township manager/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 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 a result, we find variation in the effect the professional association is likely to have on assistants values and perceptions of their profession.

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 composed and sent using Microsoft Outlook. Respondents were asked to open the attached survey instrument, add their

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 was 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 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 computerbased 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 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 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.
7 8

A 1999 New 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