The administrative presidency, congressional oversight and judicial review, are efforts to control bureaucratic discretion from outside of the agencies. Administrative law focuses almost exclusively on such "outside-in" accountability. Meanwhile, public administration scholars discuss the potential of "inside-out" approaches: managerial controls and professionalism. We propose a model of bureaucratic behavior that identifies the ideal conditions for inside-out accountability. By postulating that self-interested and other-regarding motives of bureaucrats can both be present to varying degrees in different agency environments (something that the competing public choice model does not do), our approach allows government redesign to respond to empirical learning in public administration scholarship. This learning suggests overall accountability can be enhanced if the tools of the administrative presidency (political appointments and centralized control) are reduced in favor of enhanced inside-out approaches in appropriate contexts.