The Public Administration Viewed from the Reflective Public Servants

Public objectives are mostly implemented within the public administration. Despite Weber’s idea of rationality in the public administration the latter operates more in evolutionary manner by imitation of processes that have been effective in other areas. A starting point towards taming today’s complexity can be an individual who operates primarily from his/her personal characteristics, regardless of the existing theories about the public administration (PA) in a manner “think globally, act locally”. As long as we do not clearly know how cognitive processes affect the functioning of an individual, the subjective concepts of decision making and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) can be helpful, due to known levels of knowledge, skills and competences. Entering into the unknown with the full personal preparedness for changes will be the motto of the future PA. This motto is covered within the EQF’s levels from 6 to 8.


Introduction
How come that the science of PA supposed to be interdisciplinary, while states primarily look at the public problems through regulation? (Note 1) There are many works about the human resource management, ethics, values, psycho-and socio-logical elements in the PA, but when comes to a "public situation crisis" the legislative and executive branch usually respond to it with a new legal arrangement that should "cure all evils of the past". Regulators then hope with a new set of rules -that is based on past situations and examples -to catch also the future ones (as the future would be some kind of the past's duplicate). For the future events we need forward, not backward look; we drive a car looking mainly through the car's front window not by the rear-view mirror. A legal state is not legitimate because of many rules for almost every occasion; (Note 2) they are only one of many means by which states strive to achieve their goals. Prior to creation of rules there are the peoples' needs, desires and their intentions, so detection of a problem as the problem and its apparent solution lies outside regulations; the latter are only final results of something else. This "something else" can be seen also in the importance of good (Note 3) and better management (Note 4) in the public administration. With the expansion of public tasks, with a larger degree of complexity that arises from every new relation, action, cooperation, or absence of them (content is becoming more complex with every new position or assignment: with only two possible states input variety is 2 n , while output variety is already 2 2n and connections between things are n[n-1]/2), good or better is because of its flexibility still on the pedestal of public importance. The notion of "good" has been present for many centuries and means something rational and moral. While it is directly connected with the office, (Note 5) legitimacy (Note 6) or -not only utilitarian (Note 7) -mode of thinking, (Note 8) this paper will argue that goodness is primarily connected with individual's com-passion for others.
The public servants as the drafts chief providers -by this they could also be viewed as the informal people's representatives -have to anticipate how the people will reason and feel in the future about some decision or action. For a draftsman of state operations a starting point is therefore the prediction and evaluation of what would be reasonable and acceptable for the people; by doing this, there is also present non-stop tension and the mixture of

The Public Administration in Search for the Holy Grail of "Flexible Stability"
Every theory from the field of the PA wants to establish a new balance between the peoples' rights and governmental efficiency, while in every one of them can be spotted some unintended consequences. Already Wilson in 1887 claimed that '[i]n government, as in virtue, the hardest of things is to make progress' (1887: p. 207), which he put at the first place in the PA. (Note 13) If we limit only from the NPM onwards, we now see that freedom from regulation and the more flexible PA supposed to be the NPM's solution, but the NPM's assumptions about three Ms' (markets, managers and measurement) 'led to the destabilisation of the organisational characteristics of public service and the destruction of the ethos which underpinned them' (O'Toole, 2006: p. 6). In addition to contributing to an increasingly hollow state, NPM's philosophy and practices have contributed also to the thinning of administrative institutions. (Note 14) NPM is based on "letting the managers manage" (Norman, 2001), while public servants as the main draftsmen were left aside; independent agencies presupposed -in accordance with the public choice theory -that better and more professional people are outside the PA, but they at the same time gave blow to the traditional administrative values of legality, impartiality, and independency. De-institutionalisation and de-professionalization of the public servants are shown also in their diminishing personal initiative. The multi-sector workforce has had not only implications on the public service delivery, but also on relations between officials themselves, on relations with citizens, users and their established practices. We took the NPM only as an example that will in each case give similar results, because the end is constantly re-built with every new relation or iteration.
Recent development of new ideas that deal with the PA and to it related tendencies for greater political and legal management and control have embraced also the network elements, which had led to different notions that supposed to be prevailing in the PA. (Note 15) One of the "nicest" or to the people most pleasing could be the public value theory, because of its democratic and/or participative elements, that take into account individual and public preferences, multiple objectives and means to achieve accountability (see Kelly et al., 2002). (Note 16) It is somehow surprisingly that even lawyers lately recognise a need for the public administration theory to better describe administrative law. (Note 17) Due to the apparent ineffectiveness and inefficiency (that can be also a consequence of so-called Veblen's trained incapacity that is in the PA known as Weberian rationality) in the PAs have been launched different regulatory methods (the cost-benefit analysis, regulatory impact analysis and their variants), but their focus cannot give a complete picture, because they have not been connected with the relevant situations (experimentation), nor with the subjective elements that are present in regulated fields. This picture www.ccsenet.org/par Public Administration Research Vol. 2, No. 2; cannot per se be complete neither with the enlargement of place and space (to the EU and to the present international agreements, organisations, international courts, and informal clubs, like G7, G8, G20 or the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision). There is obviously still 'a strongly felt need to change bureaucracy' (Frederickson, 1996: p. 263) that takes place also on a more and more global, interconnected level outside the national borders. Meier argues that 'problems in not only in American government are not problems of bureaucracy but problems of governance the process of governing society in a generic sense ' (1997: p. 194); governance ought better describe de facto situations, because it is based on a holistic approach: both PA and the NPM fail to capture the complex reality of the design, delivery and management of public services in the twenty-first century […] there is a pressing need now for a more sophisticated understanding of public policy implementation and public services delivery -one that moves beyond the sterile dichotomy of "administration versus management" and that allows more comprehensive and integrated approach to the study and practice of public policy implementation and public services delivery (Osborne, 2010: p. 5). The above-mentioned theories gave a new, wider look on the complex environment and more sophisticated understanding of public policies, but as the past PA's theories they are still mainly focused on the organisational questions (Note 18) or more specifically -they describe what is going on (right now in specific field), but not why is that so. If we would proceed on this path, our notions would be changed according to every new circumstance, but we would be still only describing and not administrating them -only with re-organisation, re-naming, re-placing of competences and tasks, with downsizing, re-regulation, etc., the main goal of achieving objectives cannot be fulfilled. The combination of details may give quite a unique and characteristic image of the whole society; it is also the basis for Pollitt's contextual approach (Note 19) (where right answer does not exist in advance, because each situation demands specific answer and combination of data that do not depend only on information, but also on collection of information and its evaluation) that can be in the closest proximity to the core of public operations. Solutions seem to change in accord with changes in the environment or situations of a particular state, but also this approach can only better describe a factual state, while facts would still depend on something else.
Despite the initial enthusiasm in the newly emerged, above-mentioned theories, practice constantly shows that the world is more complex, flexible, and unknown than we think. All of these (organisational and legal) ideas are mostly about adjustments to the present situation, while they are not addressing the process of adaptation itself. Theories of the PA "suffer" with the same disease as it is present in the law -they are trying to describe past events that suppose to be relevant also in the future. A wider view on situations shows that ideas are generated and shaped in accordance with the existing reality, current practice, and institutions; usually we start from what we want and believe as the main point, from which we interpret law, best organisational models and the like. We still in general guess or follow others in a la black box style without knowing why they had done something in a particular way. We know for a long time that 'a sense of moral judgement and a distinction of "right and wrong, good and bad" are cultural universals' (Brown, 1991), but what is the right or desirable quality (as the meaning of good) depends from its evaluator (all the above mentioned theories have been created by their singular authors). We should go therefore back to an individual who is aware of his/her mentality.

Adaptation as the Subjective Element of Recognition to Adapt
All situational circumstances are inevitably connected with the subjective ones. Humans adapt and control their behaviour because of multitude of senses or receptors. In natural systems a function of control (because of multitude of receptors) is placed throughout the system. (Note 20) If the system responds to stimulus, than we can say that it is aware. Awareness is present only when we (re)act. We are aware because we recognise something as recognisable; our senses and ability to learn and/or predict what will probably happen, if similar elements will be present in the future, are very important.
Everything around us is connected with the world as we see it: our capacity to reflect is not shared by other animals. From this premise we can proceed to the human mind as the main "regulator with multiple feedback loops". This subjective element has been mostly neglected in the law and the PA -although they both demand impartiality, the absence of any conflict of interest, competences and professionalism, these elements were present already in 19 th century; the human mind should be more carefully evaluated as the first point, from which we build our decisions, regardless of organisational structures of public institutions. We should be foremost aware of: who detects information, how, when, where, why, and what are alternatives and consequences. All system-oriented findings are based on basic human characteristics of persons, who are in the system and who define predispositions for system and for other people. At the core of the PA are psychological characteristics and philosophical beliefs of public servants; we could also say that ethics is in its core. (Note 21) The industrial age emphasised the machine that radically multiplied the muscle power of man, but not the right-brain mental power of humankind. Lynch & www.ccsenet.org/par Public Administration Research Vol. 2, No. 2;Lynch (2006 propose an alternative approach for the 21st century by using a virtues-based approach to the world ethics, combined with the common spiritual wisdom found in the world's major religious traditions (Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, and Islam).
The PA will be adapted as it will be its public servants: they will be adaptable only if they regard their values and virtues along other people's rights and obligations, i.e. if they will use their ethics (virtues) to become -because of proximity to other humans that enables the public servants to feel with them also -morality (values). If they will not recognise differences, neither the PA will be adaptive or responsive. Difficulty behind this is in what has taught already Cicero: 'the most important thing in your life is to become a virtuous person and so to live and act in a morally worthy way; but you can only achieve this for yourself … No book can give you the answers in advance' (Annas, 2004: p. xx, emphasis added). (Note 22) Dworkin defends the unity of value, because 'the truth about living well how to live well -ethics and being good how we must treat other people -morality is mutually supporting: what we think about any one of these must stand up, eventually, to any argument we find compelling about the rest' (2011: p. 1).
With the above-mentioned text it was shown that complexity cannot be tamed only through non-stop ex post search of circumstances for the best ex ante solutions, but also through the understanding of our inner self. We should be the starting point as persons (the mind) and as organisation (the body) with multitude (and parallel) connections. Given the differences in situations and blurred boundaries, there is no uniform organizational structure and leadership style that would be highly effective in all types of companies and institutions; the best legal order or one-fit-all model do not exist for everybody and everyone. A place for the PA can be everywhere, if we recognise it as the most appropriate for us, if we recognise the public interest in it. We can be adaptable only if we are adaptable. Only by this way we can be stable in different circumstances. Are the natural uncertainties and our personal recognition of this the main path in search for the "holy Grail" of the PA? While the former are beyond our reach, the latter can be enlightened.

Hidden Subjectivity in the Theory of Public Administration
Humans are the source of human reality and the same applies for the PA; as the latter is the biggest entity in a government structure the first are not only important, but evidently the most important factor in the administration of state. As the public servants provide information for politicians in majority of cases, they can represent some form of a feedback loop (Note 23) and by this also a badly needed factor for administration of state. Is the internal, subjective perspective of individual public servant firstly to be understood, if we want to understand the PA or governance at large? Already the Northcote and Travelyan Report (1854) dealt with the perception of the immeasurable carelessness and lack of responsiveness in the quality of public services. The same Report spoke also about the moral character or moral fitness of candidates for public service, where 'the keenest emulation would prevail among those who entered it [in the permanent civil service] and… were endowed with superior qualifications that would rapidly rise to distinction and public eminence' (1854: p. 4). (Note 24) Efficiency of the public service was then related as much to the people's moral qualities as to their abilities, while the later modes of governance left them aside. Will PAs have to re-discover human virtues and values, (Note 25) will they have to re-discover humanity? (Note 26) We do not deny that existing theories also embrace human factor inside/outside of the PA: hope in better performance, mutual and self control, increasing feeling or awareness of personal duty in contributing and participating in solving major public problems have been present in different movements before (in the New Public Administration -NPA) and along the NPM, from the 1970s onwards. They wanted to install re-generated, self-referential, self-renewing, democratic public culture (Note 27) (from NPA's conception of the citizenship, which entailed 'a vision of the informed, active citizen participating "beyond the ballot box" in a range of public activities with both elected and appointed public servants' [Frederickson, 1996: p. 265]), which depends on individuals or civil society and continues the legacy of NPA in the newly established notions of administrative justice, (Note 28) meta-governance, and e-governance. In the latter, awareness is clearly present that IT cannot solve the problems without dynamic human makers. (Note 29) Institutions do not form decisions as an independent force -individuals make them. It is no wonder that after the NPM emerged Denhardt's theory of Public Service in which 'the primary role of the public servant is to help citizens articulate and meet their shared interests rather than to attempt to control or steer society' (2000: p. 594), or Moore's theory of Public Value, in which the arbiter of value is collective, acting through the representative government. (Note 30) Are we moving back to the base of everything: to human(ism) in the public administration, or at least to the NPA from the late 1960s? (Note 31) We still have not solved the fundamental dilemmas of the human mind and it seems that they will not be solved also in the near future; the human mind is probably constantly supplemented, changed, rearranged and correlated with other factors. Progress is in the fact that we are aware of its/our (hidden) strength, and in our constant attention (Note 32) to it. If a man has this strength by which he balances values embedded in him, it is probably irrelevant if he has power or status. Can therefore hidden subjectivity in the PA be found in balancing between different values, due to failure (or unsuccessfulness) of theories that are focused more on organisation? We will therefore proceed with some theories that are focused more on our subjectivity to see if there are present clearer elements of our awareness.

Subjectivity as the Sine Qua Non of Public Administration
Weberian neutrality of public servants was long ago abandoned by Waldo's quest for values, (Note 33) while in Mayo's human relations the previously abandoned idea of the faceless and anonymous bureaucrat was somehow forgotten in the public choice theory from the mid 1950s of the last century (Note 34) with works of Black, Buchanan, Tullock and Niskanen. At the same time we should not forget 'the limited ability to rely on introducing social change through the law when the law is not backed up by values' (Etzioni, 2004: p. 158); the moral voice is much more compatible with free choice than with state coercion. To Etzioni the shared values serve as a sort of framework and the glue of society, so the public officials have to rely on the values in their drafts for the new content of the public interest that is thereafter formally applied in every legal act or material operation. Values must be therefore visible in the notion of the public interest that is afterward present in legal operations of officials. An organization and people in it are the inseparable elements, and it is no wonder that this is also valid for the human side (as it is for the organization) in the contextual theory about representation: Groeneveld and Walle have developed it by 'looking at the context in which the PA operates' (2010: p. 240). They emphasise along the managerial approaches to the representative bureaucracy also the moral ones and underline the exemplary role of a state: 'the political viability of managerial and moral approaches needs to be taken into account through acknowledging political realities and existing distributions of power in society' (ibid: p. 256). Perry and Hondeghem see the key for success in the public service motivation (PSM) 'as an individual's orientation to delivering services to people with a purpose to do good for others and society ' (2008: p. vii). This theory is the bridge between the officials' personal interests and the public interest. It refers to the process, in which individuals contribute through their work to the public good in a way that satisfies their personal needs that are similar to the public ones. It is about the motives that people have for their dedication, not because of the offered incentives (higher wages etc.) for their work. The motives depend on a case-by-case basis, upon personal, historical and situational factors. Public duties are not carried out (only) because of money, but for their own sake; they can combine pleasant with useful. The PSM must be grounded in the individual and not in the public institutions per se; there is a constant process of induction and deduction, reflection and the power of judgement (what is the best for public services and how to achieve them individually).
As the role of official in the pursuit of private, special, or collective interests is undetermined in the future, we cannot describe it only in the relation to his current motives and interests, but we can use Wittgenstein's approach to language in order to better understand bureaucracy: we have to take into account various ways in which bureaucracy operates. The substantive guidance for this causality can still be found in Aristotle's nature of things, i.e. in formal, material, moving, and final causes. (Note 36) From this wider substantial efficiency later emerged the narrow technical efficiency as a ratio between inputs and outputs that is not "efficient" enough. (Note 37) Human thoughts, emotions, and values are mixed in different manners. Nevertheless we can still indirectly influence them with our activity: Because we always have control over our component of behaviour, there are also simultaneously -if we significantly change our behaviour -changed components of thinking and feeling and our physiology. The more we actively engage in the active behaviour [...] the more we will also revise our thoughts, feelings, and listen to what our body tells us. If this gives us greater control, there will also be better feelings, more pleasant thoughts, and physical comfort (Glasser, 1994: pp. 51-52).
The first step to the clearer answer of what is going on in the PA is awareness that public officials must feel energy, which has also been the most important for Hamilton (Note 38) and Durkheim; (Note 39) only then we can reflect on the conditions for social intervention and the ways of its evaluation: 'the implementation of the critique itself must be understood as constituting of the critique itself in the practice of intervention, in the form of know-how about how to engage in collective construction with the actors as they analyse their own positioning' (Lenoble and Maesschalck, 2010: p. 249). The public employees' behaviours have a big impact on what they and other people think, feel and behave; they have de facto big impact on the administrative implementation and political decision-making at all levels. Like the members of Parliament they are the representatives of the whole nation; the public employees represent emanations of the public interest that are many times prepared as predispositions, on which the members of Parliament afterward decide.

Subjectivity in the Theory of the PA's Decision-Making Models
Along the above mentioned theories that addressed subjectivity of the public servants, there are also theories that have a subjective focus on decision making. If we agree that also public servant have inner virtues and outer values, we are going beyond the politics-administration dichotomy. Simon e.g. wanted to install personal conditionality as "bounded rationality" between the means and ends, by determining the real organizational environment of decision making, where goals are accomplished only 'satisfactorily or good enough' (2000: p. 119). He thought that 'the behaviour of a rational person can be controlled … if the value and factual premises upon which he bases his decisions are specified for him. This control can be complete or partial -all the premises can be specified, or some can be left to his discretion. Influence, then, is exercised through control over the premises of decision' (ibid: p. 308). (Note 40) The public choice or the principal-agent theory at this point rightly draws attention to the individual's desire and private interest, but it points out the impossibility of covering the entire human mind merely with formally established values, regardless of the real ones. A relation between means and ends in the public decision-making is objectively and evolutionary closer to Lindblom's "muddling through", where 'the correct policy is made through comparison with other ones … while in situations where there is no agreement on values and objectives … the test is on agreement on policy itself, which remains possible, even when agreement on values is not ' (1959: p. 83). Etzioni supplemented Lindblom's incremental approach with his "mixed scanning" in which the most fundamental decisions are used together with incremental ones, because 'most incremental decisions specify or anticipate fundamental decisions; and cumulative value of the incremental decisions is greatly affected by the related fundamental decisions ' (1967: p. 388). Such a mix is also close to Rohr's ethics of bureaucrats, in which orientation to the regime values can help bureaucrats in choosing their path, when law gives them no guidance, when they have to use their own discretion: the oath to uphold the Constitution is the moral foundation of ethics for bureaucrats ' (1989, p. 70). The case of regime values can be treated similarly, 'namely much more as a normative than as an empirical concept, referring to the values, not of any historical regime, but of the quintessential or simply the best regime' (Overeem, 2008: p. 15), as the latter is in the domain of each individual, while in similar vein the best public sector is in the domain of officials. Public administration should increase its recognition of the deleterious effects of unconscious rhetoric in our language and way of thinking, of symbolic systems that are at work under the surface of public administration's consciousness. It should increase its appreciation for the relevance of psychoanalytic understandings, which are currently pursued on public administration's circumference. It should indulge the play of analysis (Farmer, 2010: p. 194 The still-uncovered future path could be foremost in subjective conditionality of human mind, which perceives conditions in surrounding nature as objective or subjective elements. All previous attempts to highlight subjective side of the public servants or their decision-making somehow merely scratched the surface. In the next subsection of this paper we will deal with some complex parts that could be the main predispositions for better understanding of decision making in the PA.

Subjective Concepts of Decision Making
For Lukacs 'what governs the world (and especially in the democratic age) is not the accumulation of money, or even of goods, but the accumulation of opinions' (2005: p. 45). For him 'our concern must be with how people think, how they choose to think, how they are influenced or impressed to think and speak' (ibid: p. 47). Weberian instrumental rationality 'sine ira et studio' (Weber, 1978: p. 125) cannot provide clear guidance for activities, where and when goals must be achieved that are in conflict with each other and which depend on the individual choices and balancing. Behind every situation is always a human who evaluates it and offers solutions. As everyday practice shows, there are irregularities despite the overall higher level of education in the public service than in past times. Although the work on HRM in the public service for the 21 st century speaks about "mindful", "mindset", or "solution-minded" civil service (Sistare et al., 2009), for which 'social equity and values are articulated in public laws, policies, and regulations' (Long-Green, 2009: p. 27), such stances are still incomplete: life is much more than the law, although the latter is its part. While in the law still prevails only "impartial and independent reason", 'there is no intrinsic opposition between emotion and reason: emotion is a principal source of motivation, focusing us toward particular goals; and it can direct great powers of thought on the goals it evokes' (Simon, 2000: p. 91). It seems that we are continuously dealing with the same questions for which no one knows answers; we all agree that we must be "good" -but how good, in what manner, to whom, with what or why?
The relation between public servants and citizens is psychologically complex and cannot be reduced only to the relation between rules and facts: human mind is the one that puts them together (a priori or a posteriori) as such. If we want to comprehend the PA, we must foremost understand the mind of a public servant. One of the best-known tools is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (it represents -based on Jung's theory of psychological type -a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions [Myers & Myers, 1980;1995]), but some researchers have interpreted the reliability of the test as being low (Pittenger, 1993). We are still left with ideas, not being tested by the controlled scientific studies. But before we can approach to such studies, we must have concepts, from which we could build harder elements (like before gravity the concept of weight must have been established). We will highlight the concepts of: (I) apparent reasons, (II) a projection of evil, (III) positive orientation and (IV) relational satisfaction.
(I) People usually act without thinking, in a routine manner, many times only with an apparent reason of "because" (see Cialdini, 1998: pp. 5-6). Legal rules (sometimes) satisfy the principle of legal certainty and formally protect people from the conflict of values, rights, or obligations, but without context in which they were developed and implemented, there could not be a whole picture: no rule is self-interpreting (Wittgenstein), because 'only interpretation determines what is the correct application of rule' (Baker & Hacker, 1988, p. 144), no choice is clearly guided only by certain rules (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006) and all social structures arise and are transformed by individuals that mandated them. The structure is more dynamic than it is conventionally assumed (Giddens & Sewell, 1984), while the formation of structures is made by individuals' assumptions. (Note 42) (II) One of the possible concepts could be Sartre's projection of evil: people hate in others that half of themselves, which they apparently reject. (Note 43) Because they cannot reach other people through emotions, they look at them as objects: 'my objective qualities that are recognized by them do not express what I am, but what I am in relation to them ' (1981: p. 133). Thus, the objective definition of misbehaviour that people assign to others, the latter perceive as subjective; they let themselves be personally persuaded that this definition is related to their subjective and hidden part of being. By this way people adopt illicit desires of other people and internalize them as their own: 'the more we think that people are corrupt, the more people will be corrupt' (Rothstein, 2000: p. 479). The more people think that public administration is inefficient, the more it will be inefficient and the more probably the public servants will act so. Already in 1946 von Mises warned that such emotional statements of the general public (that were in general excuses for their personal inaction) (Note 44) are against the PA; the common stereotypes of the PA are pointing to its wastefulness and inefficiency. In such cases the minds of public servants can absorb such stereotypes as their own or they can vice versa negatively think about people as being e.g. too dependent, illiterate, unintelligent, ungrateful, or unjust. If the public opinion is too negative, then the PA will probably also not be too positive. (Note 45) (III) The human mind (or its orientation) must be positive; the same is valid for the progressive values of 'cooperation, knowledge, and openness to alternatives, economics as means rather than end, limited inequality, and Earth as a home to be protected' (Box, 2008: p. 22). Such values automatically trigger questions about mechanisms for initiating change that Box sees in the 'imagining alternative futures, scenarios that are different from the status quo' (ibid: p. 35), or Wainwright and Little in 'a deepening and strengthening of democracy and a reinvigoration of public service values [that] can be the most appropriate spur to real improvement in how public goods are provided ' (2009: p. 13). Public servants and citizens must therefore regard each other in a positive manner, because human mind projects content into others as well as into itself.
(IV) Beside factors that focus our attention on the stated factual goals, we should pay also attention to the relational satisfaction that is affected by the way we perceive messages, get involved with other persons and by the way we evaluate past experiences, expectations, social roles, self-concepts, self-fulfilling prophecies (Note 46) (when we -at least unconsciously -wish a certain outcome to happen, our expectation of that outcome is heightened, because we unconsciously take actions that lead to that outcome) and a wider culture (habits), in which we live. 'What is needed in analysing the action of norms today, is not a focus on repression and suppression, but rather a focus on the power of relation with the external in the process of self-transformation undertaken by social subjects in order to emerge from reification' (Lenoble & Maesschalck, 2010: p. 249 (Fredericson, 2010: p. xiv).
What can the individual do, if he is aware of such conditions, aware of "what to do"? In the absence of the scientifically determined findings about the good administrative values, we can offer only the main subjective concepts to which attention must be focused in the future. They are the signalling behaviour, positive stance, the self-fulfilling prophecy, the principle of reciprocity, and relational satisfaction. We must be aware of them even in the case of low stimuli, because they affect the "good" or "bad" PA. Efficiency, effectiveness, professionalism, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, etc. are only apparent directions (or even words) by which officials conduct their work, if they do not internalize them as 'the quasi moral principles of their work' (Note 47) as their main guides.

The European Qualifications Framework
Within the subjective concepts could be used also the EQF 'as a translation device to make national qualifications more readable across Europe, promoting workers' and learners' mobility between countries and facilitating their lifelong learning' (European Commission, 2013). The EQF's learning outcomes (Note 48) can be used as outcomes that are expected also from the public servants and as results that confirm the presence of cognitive elements in learning (knowledge), skills (use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) and competences (responsibility and autonomy). The EQF is divided into the eight-level framework where each level (Note 49) defines a set of descriptors as the generic outcomes. This framework can be used as a methodology by which the subjectivity of the person can be at least indirectly assed by the learning outcomes.

Conclusion
Life has always more in it than rules can show; Miles' law ('where you stand depends on where you sit' [Miles, 1978]) is applicable also in the PA. The PA cannot be objectively addressed within the mainly legally oriented theory of the PA; our evaluation shows that we have to look on the successes and failures of the PA also through the basic characteristics of the human mind, in which decisions depend on our predispositions (legal rules, rules of thumb, emotions, reason and/or everything what we know, feel or sense) by which we perceive the world around us. (Note 50) Awareness or a mind-set is more important than specific means or techniques. (Note 51) This paper gives reasons why there cannot be one best model that can be applied everywhere or in every occasion: there are not so many interests, as are many different views. To the specific management and institutional ideas (public choice, hierarchy, autonomy, centralisation, decentralisation, etc.) in the PA is given too big emphasis, but not to real context, which we evaluate as persons.
Re-introduction, deeper development and research of human characteristics in the science of administration have to be more focused on the official's human mind that is inevitably connected with the decision-making processes in public affairs. The future theory of public administration should include and test the basic findings that have been developed in psychology -especially when public power is used to coerce people (e.g. Zimbardo's or Milgram's experiment). The human mind is more complex than it can be understood from a certificate of good education or job specification. A reductionist approach cannot be used, if there does not exist a priori holistic, pluralistic whole. (Note 52) Public decisions are also dependent on the (non)legal, (ir)rational elements, on the real and potential threats or possibilities. Europe gives nowadays a big emphasis on the so-called "21 st century or innovation skills" (Note 53 ) that are mainly the subjective elements which were discussed in this paper.
We would like to know for what, why, whom, what, and on what basis the PA actually governs, even if we do not know all answers to these questions. A mysterious formula of order is constantly present and absent at the same time; it is about the idea that we continually implement it -and sometimes really without seeing it -it is about combination of our innate, instinctive desire to see and to re-find order. Decisions by the majority of votes, analysis of costs and effects, regulatory impact analysis, and similar models of decision-making are at the present level still a pale approximation of the processes that constantly operate in our mind. We do not know enough about the public servants' minds that create the content of administrative values. More research will be needed about (apparent reasons, a projection of evil, positive orientation and relational satisfaction) and other personal elements (e.g. subordination, honour, respect, loyalty, modelling behaviour) that are present in the PA's decision making. Given the lack of satisfactory or only partially satisfactory answers from the analysis of the existing theories of our subjectivity, the paper urges for the additional psychological research. Only by this way good-, sound-and/or caring, cautious (administration, governance) and other notions of the PA can be properly assessed. In the meantime the discussed four subjective concepts (predispositions) and the EQF (outputs) with the clear focus on human mind and on knowledge, skills and competences, irrespective of the routes of acquisition (by the law, morality, culture etc.), can be the helpful tool for evaluation of our decisions.
In us it is always more personal note of freedom, security, and survival than we can deduce from the legal books. We must 'actually put ourselves in context and consider the potential conflict of our time' (Unger, 2004: p. lv) regardless of the existing theories. They were established in a different time and in (at least slightly) different conditions. They are not a magic formula. The magic is in us, in you. Look around, search inside you and see for yourself. Then (locally) step into the world's (global) "shoes" -there could be a universal basis of our humanity.