discussion board

Topic: Public Administration Reform and the Future

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

discussion board

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

Discuss statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future. Discuss the challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this area and the statecraft needed to lead successfully. Integrate Biblical principles and Biblical worldview into your personal thread and your replies to peers.

Board Forums in which you will post a thread presenting your own opinion on the assigned topic, writing 400–500 words. Then, you will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 or more classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Merely posting the same reply in 2 places is not sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all of the required readings and presentations for that module/week. It must also address statecraft as part of a meaningful discussion of effective statesmanship. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the module/week. Use only peer reviewed sources (no dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites, or Wikipedia). All cites and references should conform to APA Style Manual (current edition).

Integrate Biblical principles within your discussion for both your personal thread and in all replies to peers.

CHAPTER 10

Administrative Reform, Productivity, and Performance

 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Understanding the motivations for contemporary administrative reform movements

2. Examining how NPM and reinvention are related to issues of quality and productivity

3. Exploring the impact of advances in technology on government and governance

4. Understanding the importance of performance measurement in the public sector

5. Learning about productivity improvement strategies

 SUMMARY OVERVIEW

Chapter 10 addresses contemporary administrative reforms and the role of technology in

changing the way in which government works. The authors note that the field of public

administration as a discipline emerged during the Progressive Reform Movement, which sought

to reduce corruption and increase professionalism in public service. Since that time, the field has

undergone an ongoing series of reform efforts that represent, at least in part, an attempt to

reconcile the often-conflicting needs of administrative efficiency and democratic accountability.

This chapter focuses on efforts aimed at increasing administrative efficiency and productivity.

The authors first review contemporary reform efforts embodied in New Public Management

(NPM) and the “reinventing government” movement. These concepts, based on the idea that the

systems underlying public organizations lack the capacity to meet twenty-first-century challenges

and opportunities, focus on issues of performance and accountability in government and are

concerned with improving government quality and productivity without increases in costs. This

discussion traces the evolution of NPM, which has emerged in several countries over the past

several decades and is aimed at creating public organizations that are mission-driven,

decentralized, and incentive-based, and the “reinventing government” movement, which is based

on many of the NPM principles. “Reinvention” is centered around the concept that more

entrepreneurial forms of government—more streamlined, flexible, and responsive systems of

public policy and administration—are needed to enable public administrators to deal with public

problems effectively and to capitalize on opportunities in contemporary society. Included here is

an overview of how these approaches have been incorporated, in varying degrees, into the

management agenda at the federal level and how it has driven calls for reform in the nonprofit

sector as well. This section concludes with a discussion about results achieved by these reforms

and the concerns expressed by critics of these approaches.

The chapter then turns to an examination of the impact that advances in technology have had on

the way in which government operates, noting that technology has been a central part of the drive

to improve government performance. This discussion notes that by the beginning of the twenty-

first century, these advances had governments turning increasingly to online resources for many

of their core functions, including economic development, human and social service delivery,

health care, and citizen engagement. This has created a new paradigm in which technology will

126 Chapter 10: Administrative Reform, Productivity, and Performance

be applied in ways that will make the relationship between government and citizens more direct

and inclusive. This section addresses the concepts of e-government and e-governance, noting

distinctions between the two terms, and looks at several specific examples of the use of

technology at all levels of government. The interactive set of technologies known collectively as

Web 2.0, is reviewed, and the section concludes with a discussion about the challenges and

limitations of technology and the potential that has yet to be realized from its use.

The final section of the chapter deals with performance measurement in government, which has

become an important form of public-sector management reform as governments have come under

increasing pressure to demonstrate that their programs generate substantive outcomes. This

section examines the development of federal regulation requiring agencies to link planning and

performance outcomes to budgeting decisions and highlights efforts at state and local levels to

implement performance measurement in order to assess how well they are meeting programmatic

goals and outcomes. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the issues involved in

implementing quality, productivity, and performance initiatives, and suggests a series of steps

that should be considered in any improvement effort.

 CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT, REINVENTION, THE MANAGEMENT
AGENDA, AND NONPROFIT REFORM

A. The New Public Management

B. Reinventing Government

C. The Management Agenda

D. Nonprofit Management Reform

E. The Results of NPM and Reinvention

II. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

A. Technology and Management Reform

B. E-Government and E-Governance

III. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

 Exploring Concepts: SEEING EYE TO EYE: PERFORMANCE
MEASURES THAT MATTER TO CITIZENS

 Exploring Concepts: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT:
THEORY AND PRACTICE

A. Implementation Issues in Quality and Productivity

B. Steps to Productivity Improvement

IV. SUMMARY AND ACTION IMPLICATIONS

Chapter 10: Administrative Reform, Productivity and Performance 127

 KEY TERMS

Benchmarking Targeting specific goals based on previous performance levels, standards set by

similar organizations, objectives created through strategic planning, or any combination

of these.

Citizen-centered public administration Citizens are viewed as owners who elect leaders to

represent their interests and who engage with government to achieve public outcomes.

Customer-centered public administration Puts citizens in a role that is limited to liking or

disliking services, assuming that administrators will make changes in services if enough

customers are dissatisfied.

E-governance The use of technology to not only provide government services and

administration but also to facilitate democratic processes and the relationships among

citizens, civil society, the market, and the state.

E-government The government’s use of technology to provide information, deliver services,

support operations, and interact with citizens, businesses, and other governments at any

time from any place.

Entrepreneurial government Systems of public policy and administration that are more

streamlined, flexible, and responsive.

Managerialism A belief that government could and should be run like a business based on

strictly economic principles.

New Public Management A set of principles and practices in the public service designed to

create organizations that are mission-driven, decentralized, and incentive-based and

guided by principles of accountability, responsiveness, and a commitment to outcome-

based governance.

Performance measurement A means to produce quantitative evidence about government

program outcomes that demonstrates how well a program is meeting its goals.

Quality circle Small group of people who do similar or connected work and meet regularly to

identify, analyze, and solve work-process problems.

Reinventing government An entrepreneurial approach to government and public administration

that combines competition and empowerment with more attention to public outcomes and

action based on customer priorities rather than bureaucratic imperatives.

128 Chapter 10: Administrative Reform, Productivity, and Performance

 WEB LINKS

The following is a link to global perspectives on New Public Management:

OECD Public Management and Governance Service: (www.oecd.org).

The following are links to information about digital government and governance:

National Center for Digital Governance: (http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/index.html).

Center for Technology in Government: (www.ctg.albany.edu).

National Science Foundation Digital Government Research Program:

(www.digitalgovernment.org).

The following are links to information about government performance:

Performance.gov: (www.performance.gov).

Office of Management and Budget: (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/performance).

OMB Watch: (www.ombwatch.org/government_performance/).

Congressional Institute: (www.conginst.org/).

http://www.oecd.org/

http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/index.html

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/

http://www.digitalgovernment.org/

http://www.performance.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/performance

http://www.ombwatch.org/government_performance/

http://www.conginst.org/

The New Public Management in hybrid settings: New challenges for
performance measures

Deborah Agostino* and Michela Arnaboldi

Department of Management Engineering, Politecnico di Milano,Via Lambruschini 4b, Milano,
Italy

(Received 30 November 2014; revised 18 February 2015; accepted 6 June 2015)

This study questions whether Performance Measurement Systems (PMSs) defined
under the New Public Management (NPM) logic fit the needs of hybrid settings
where inter-organizational relationships exist between multiple actors in charge of
service delivery. After outlining the key characteristics of an NPM-based PMS and
its limitations in hybrid settings, an exploratory case study was carried out on a pub-
lic network in charge of delivering a local public transport service. The network
was particularly appropriate, as it initially endorsed an NPM-based PMS. Findings
show problems in using the PMS and adapting the model, which led to the develop-
ment of new features and requirements. Using a theoretical triangulation, it was
possible to draw a more general insight into the characteristics of a PMS in a hybrid
setting, here called a relational and participative PMS.

Keywords: performance measures; hybrids; public networks

Introduction

This article explores the extent to which performance measurement, developed follow-
ing the New Public Management (NPM) paradigm, fits the current needs of public ser-
vices, which are seen as hybrid realities where public and private organizations
interplay to deliver a service.

Over the past 20 years, the NPM (Hood, 1991) paradigm proliferated among public
administrations, supporting management practices and tools, often from the private sec-
tor, that had been introduced to improve public service delivery. Following the NPM
logic, performance measurement systems (PMSs) have acquired a central role. The
work of three decades of empirical and theoretical contributions highlights some
properties of these PMSs, which use the input/output model (Pollanen, 2005) as their
main reference. A set of metrics can be derived from this model, to include efficiency,
effectiveness and equity, together with several methods of performance planning and
control linked to the hierarchical structure of the organization. These metrics have been
widely adopted by public organizations all around the world, with studies exploring
PMS design, implementation processes, and uses (Andrews & Kouzmin, 1999;
Diefenbach, 2009; Guthrie & English, 1997). More recently, the NPM has come under
greater scrutiny, with some authors (James, 2001; Osborne, 2006; Wiesel & Modell,
2014) questioning its role in a modern environment that has changed from the mid
1980s when it was first introduced.

*Corresponding author. Email: deborah.agostino@polimi.it

International Review of Public Administration, 2015
Vol. 20, No. 4, 353–369, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2015.1088686

mailto:deborah.agostino@polimi.it

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2015.1088686

The main challenge of these modern realities has been acknowledged in the shift
toward hybrid settings, where private and public organizations must interact and col-
laborate in order to deliver public services (Christensen & Lægreid, 2014; Koppenjan
& Koliba, 2013), in a form often known as public networks. This movement from a
single public administration to a complex hybrid structure to provide a service also
poses problems for PMSs, with their divergent views about their own importance in
these new settings. While some studies search for new metrics with which to evaluate
the hybrid structures (e.g. Agostino & Arnaboldi, 2013; Kenis & Provan, 2009, Provan
& Lemaire, 2012; Provan & Milward, 2001), others affirm that performance measure-
ment alone is not sufficient in hybrid contexts with multiple actors and inter-organiza-
tional relationships (e.g. Kenis & Provan, 2006; Romzek, LeRoux, & Blackmar,
2012).With the purpose of contributing to extant literature on PMSs in hybrid settings,
this article investigates the extent to which performance measures defined under the
NPM logic fit the needs of hybrid settings, exploring the limitations of an NPM-based
PMS and the new requirements for measuring performance. We carried out an empiri-
cal investigation of these issues within the hybrid context of a public network for a
local public transport service in Italy, composed of local administrations working jointly
with private and public service providers to deliver the transport service locally. This
case was of particular interest, since it initially attempted to manage the network using
a PMS developed following NPM principles. Through interviews conducted over a per-
iod of three years, it was possible to explore both the original NPM-based system and
its limitations and the new emerging requirements for measuring performance.

Results show that PMSs in hybrid settings are associated with new requirements, in
terms of both metrics and methods, leading to a revised PMS, here called relational
and participative PMS. This revised PMS expands the traditional NPM-based approach
with additional units of analysis, performance metrics, and introduces a participative
approach to data collection and auditing procedures.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. The main characteristics of an NPM-
based PMS will first be described, together with the extant contributions on PMSs in
hybrid settings. Then the methodology of research will be presented, followed by the
results, discussing the limitations of an NPM-based PMS in terms of metrics and
methods. Finally, the emergent relational and participative PMS in hybrid settings will
be discussed in the concluding section.

NPM and performance measurement

NPM is a term that emerged in the mid1980s in UK and refers to a set of techniques
and management tools, often derived from the private sector, that are applied in the
public sector, with the final aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public
services (Hood, 1991, 1995). These private sector techniques are said to reinvent
government by ‘lessening or removing differences between the public and the private
sector and shifting the emphasis from process accountability toward a greater account-
ability in terms of results’ (Hood, 1995, p. 94). Following this definition and the
existing public administration practices and studies in this field (e.g. Hood, 1991, 1995;
Lapsley, 2008), performance measures are at the heart of NPM.

Performance measurement is an approach where indicators are used to evaluate the
range, level, and content of services to be provided (Hood, 1991), and it is associated
with the need to introduce control over the output produced by public administrations.
Indeed, ‘by quantifying goals and measuring whether they are achieved, organizations

354 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

reduce and eliminate ambiguity and confusion about objectives, and gain coherence
and focus in pursuit of their mission’ (Verbeeten, 2008, p. 427). It has been suggested
that, through performance measurement, public organizations can enhance their plan-
ning and control over resources, leading to better value for money and improved ser-
vices for the public (Sanderson, 2001). Three decades of empirical and theoretical
studies on NPM led to the emergence of PMS and its distinctive features.

An NPM-based PMS can be referred to as a collection of KPIs (Key Performance
Indicators) centered on an input/output model in which responsibility is concentrated,
assigning the KPIs along the hierarchical line within the organizational units, and
adopting formal procedures. Following this definition, an NPM-based PMS can be
explored in terms of two key dimensions: metrics and methods (see Table 1).

The first key dimension of an NPM-based PMS is that of its metrics, which have
been developed starting from an input/output model (Pollanen, 2005). According to this
model, some inputs are required to carry out certain activities that lead, in turn, to some
outputs, such as the delivery of a service. Input refers to the amount of resources used
to perform a certain activity while output refers to the result of a transformation pro-
cess. Starting from this input/output model, the metrics are composed of two elements:
performance dimensions and unit of analysis.

Performance dimensions comprise a set of KPIs, which explore different aspects of
the input/output model in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, also known
as the 3E’s (Jackson & Palmer, 1992). Efficiency measures compare the service output
with the required resources in input. Effectiveness measures evaluate the outcome
characteristics of the delivered service, while economy measures are related to the value
of the input resources used. Bouckaert and Van Doren (2003) introduced a fourth E,
equity, used to evaluate whether everybody has the same opportunity of accessing a
public service of the same quantity and quality. Furthermore, following this input/out-
put model, performance measures are calculated with reference to a specific ‘object of
control’, also defined as unit of analysis. This unit of analysis is the organizational unit,
which is controlled by performance measures and usually corresponds to the organiza-
tion itself.

The second key dimension of the NPM-based PMS is that of its methods, intended
as the approaches used for planning targets and controlling achievements. These meth-
ods include a hierarchical line of communication in terms of performance measures and
auditing procedures, to verify compliance with the selected KPIs. On the one hand, a
hierarchical approach to PMS consists in making use of the different organizational
levels, going from the top down to the operational units, to communicate and control
performance plans. This hierarchical approach has also been defined as ‘top-down’, with
reference to ‘a dominant concern for enhancing control and upwards accountability’

Table 1. Characteristics of an NPM-based PMS.

PMS characteristics NPM-based PMS

Metrics Unit of analysis Organization
Performance dimensions Efficiency, effectiveness, economy,

equity
Methods Approach to performance planning and

control
Hierarchical

Auditing approach Formalized

International Review of Public Administration 355

(Sanderson, 2001, p. 297). By proceeding along the organizational hierarchical line, it is
possible to implement performance measurements within public administrations. This
approach has been derived to counter the ambiguity that can be generated when defining
targets: unclear objectives and measures can undermine improvements to performance
(Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999). In order to limit this risk, roles and responsibilities must
be clearly defined. It has been stated that ‘a main goal of the NPM and reinvention-style
reforms was to introduce a strategic “clarity of task and purpose” to public organizations
through a variety of organizational reforms’ (Moynihan & Pandey, 2004, p. 426). These
reforms had implications on how PMS can assist in the implementation of a clear hierar-
chical structure with defined roles and responsibilities in terms of performance planning
and control.

On the other hand, starting from the need to communicate performance measures
(Lapsley, 2008) in a transparent manner, auditing procedures have been enhanced to
provide a further, formalized control of the data collected by public administrations.
The requirement for higher transparency led to the development of the second PMS
property, that of auditing. Power (1997) defines audit as the ‘control of control’ since
‘auditors began to experience a wave of formalized and detailed checking up on what
they do’ (Power, 1997, p. 3). Accordingly, audit procedures affect not only substantive
activities, or what it is called financial audit (Power, 2003), but also internal processes
and systems of control (Sanderson, 2001). Therefore, the diffusion of NPM approaches
has been associated with the parallel development of auditing procedures to control the
process of data collection and management, which, in turn, is useful in controlling the
activities of public administrations.

NPM-based performance measures have been widely developed around the world,
although the timing and nuances are different (e.g. Leishman, Cope, & Starie, 1995).
For example, the UK was among the first countries to endorse these practices in mid
1980s, while other countries only adopted the approach a decade later (e.g. Andrews &
Kouzmin, 1999; Guthrie & English, 1997).

Nowadays, NPM and its theoretical pillars have come under greater scrutiny
because of the changes to public organization settings, mainly associated with the
diffusion of hybrid organizational structures (James, 2001; Osborne, 2006; Wiesel &
Modell, 2014).

Hybrid settings and PMS

Hybrid is an ambiguous term broadly defining a ‘new phenomena produced out of two
or more elements normally found separately’ (Miller, Kurunmäki, & O’Learly, 2008,
p. 943). In public administration, the notion of hybrid has usually been associated to
organizational structures: hybrids are organizational structures set between market and
hierarchy (Powell, 1990; Thomasson, 2009). This hybridity is often generated by the
collision between two different realms, the public sector and the business area. It has
been said that:

These organizations [the reference is to hybrid organizations] are expected to function like
businesses: to be efficient, customer driven, and client oriented. Yet, they perform tasks
that are inherently public. In other words, they are supposed to act as if they were situated
in the private sphere, while at the same time remain within the public sphere. (Kickert,
2001, p. 136)

356 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

Hybrid structures, such as partnerships, alliances, networks, and collaborative relation-
ships (Agranoff & McGuire, 2003), are associated with two key features: multiple orga-
nizational actors and inter-organizational relationships. The first distinctive element of
hybrid structures is that there are multiple organizational actors. The wide diffusion of
contract-based reforms promoted by the NPM to improve public services, has been
associated with an increased fragmentation of the service provision sector. Conse-
quently, hybrid structures involve many actors that differ in terms of their nature and
professional roles. They include public and private organizations, as well as policy-
makers and public managers. The presence of many actors of a different nature can
potentially clash with the need to implement a clear hierarchical structure in the PMS,
something that was a characteristic of NPM-based PMSs.

The second distinctive element of hybrid structures is that of their inter-organiza-
tional relationships, which connect this multiplicity of actors. The diffusion of service
contracts to promote competition has, however, led to an increase in service delivery
fragmentation, and public services need to be delivered in an integrated way. In this
respect, ‘intense and innovative cooperative working among public, private and volun-
tary providers is promoted as a way of replacing the existing fragmented and dispersed
service provision’ (Kurunmäki & Miller, 2006, p. 88). Concepts such as collaboration
and cooperation are recurrent in public administration literature relating to hybrid struc-
tures, with a variety of studies exploring the formation, management, and dynamics of
collaborative practices between multiple actors (e.g. Kim, 2006; McGuire, 2006).

In this growing context of hybrid settings, performance measurement is often over-
looked because of the argument that, due to their collaborative nature, hybrids are not
associated with the need for performance control. Output controls, which are upheld
and promoted by the NPM, have been criticized as not being appropriate in these new
settings (Kenis & Provan, 2006). Having said this, the issue of performance measures
has been analyzed by some scholars with the main purpose of exploring the way to
measure the success or failure of hybrid structures. These studies are interested in
quantifying how hybrid structures are performing, with particular emphasis on service
effectiveness (e.g. Provan & Milward, 2001) and determinants of such effectiveness,
including network structure, context and functional characteristics (Provan & Milward,
1995; Turrini, Cristofoli, Frosini, & Nasi, 2010). In this respect, traditional measures as
well as ad hoc network measures have been proposed (Mandell & Keast, 2007). For
example, with a specific focus on collaborative networks, the paper by Mandell and
Keast (2007) suggests to develop ad hoc network measures based on relationships
alongside traditional output measures. Andrews and Entwistle (2010) investigated
cross-sectoral partnerships to understand whether they positively affect service perfor-
mance in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Similar studies can be found for
networks (Provan & Milward, 2001), partnerships (Lee & Yoo, 2012), and collaborative
relationships (Ryan & Walsh, 2004).

Extant studies do not specify a single, unique position for the role of performance
measures in hybrid settings. While some search for new metrics (e.g. Agostino &
Arnaboldi, 2013; Kenis & Provan, 2009; Mandell & Keast, 2007; Provan & Lemaire,
2012; Provan & Milward, 2001), others overlook performance measurement, suggesting
alternative approaches based on informal arrangements (e.g. Kenis & Provan, 2006;
Romzek et al., 2012). The aim of this study is to contribute to extant literature on PMS
in hybrid settings, by exploring whether NPM-based PMSs fit modern hybrid realities.
Specifically, two research questions are addressed: What are the problems of adopting

International Review of Public Administration 357

NPM-based PMSs in hybrid environments? Which are the new requirements for perfor-
mance measures in these hybrid settings?

Methodology

This study is based on the qualitative methodology of case studies (Yin, 2003), deemed
as the most appropriate (Eisenhardt, 1989), because of its ability of providing an under-
standing of complex behaviors and relationships in social contexts (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000). A single case study (Denzin, 1978; Yin, 2003) was conducted for this research,
analyzing regulatory documents, archival data and official documentation, interviews
and media observations. The following sections will contain a description of the
research setting and then provide details on the process of data collection and analysis.

Research setting

The selected hybrid setting is the public network for local public transport, involving
both public administrations and private organizations. The public network corresponds
to the local regional area and was imposed by the Region (here called the Daphne
Region, for reasons of confidentiality) to integrate local public services at regional
level.

The hybrid structure to provide a public service comprises four different categories
of actors: Region, Provinces, Municipalities,1 and service providers. The Daphne
Region is responsible for the general governance of the public network, and is in
charge of strategic transportation planning. Provinces and Municipalities have a regula-
tory role for the bus service, each in their area of competence (either the province or
the municipality). They prepare competitive tendering for their local area and manage
the service contracts of each service provider. Transport providers are private and pub-
lic companies in charge of delivering the public service. The network, overall, is com-
posed of one Region, 11 Provinces, 11 Municipalities, and 33 service providers.

In 2008, the Daphne Region introduced a regulatory intervention to integrate ser-
vice delivery throughout the region. In this regulation, the individuality of the single
actors was recognized, but there was also the requirement for them to operate jointly to
deliver an integrated service in terms of interconnections, tariffs, and time scheduling.
Central to this reforming process was the introduction of a Performance Measurement
System (PMS) to plan, manage, and control the activity of the different players, in
order to deliver a single integrated offer to users.

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected over a period of three years (from 2009 to 2012) from a number
of sources. The first source of data involved regulatory documents. European, national,
and regional laws on local public transport were reviewed, with the objective of build-
ing a comprehensive picture of the national and regional transport landscape. This
analysis was particularly useful in understanding the NPM settings in which the PMS
was initially developed.

The second source included archival data in the form of performance reports, minutes
of regional meetings, service contracts, and annual reports from all the stakeholders
involved in the public network. The third source of data concerned the interviews with
managers of transport provider organizations, managers, and politicians from public

358 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

administrations and representatives of user groups. Each of the 28 semi-structured inter-
views lasted between 45 and 110 minutes, and were recorded digitally and then tran-
scribed. Interviews were first carried out with two representatives from the Region, then
with eleven mobility managers of the Provinces and Municipalities, and finally, with 12
transport company managers and three user group representatives. Interviews were par-
ticularly useful in understanding characteristics, limitations and further developments of
the implemented PMS.

This study has also drawn on media commentaries about the regional reforming
process, with particular reference to the last regional reform of 2008. The media
analysis, mainly from newspaper and television sources, reveals user concerns about
their transport services. All the various sources of data were analyzed using a
qualitative approach, which involved a textual analysis, sorting data into themes and
cross-referencing them with theoretical principles in order to increase the internal
validity of the case study material (Denzin, 1978).

Results

This section discusses the NPM-based PMS developed by the Daphne Regional
Administration to manage and control the hybrid setting of the local public transport
network, and to address any problems in this system and the newly emerging require-
ments. The PMS is discussed with a distinction made between metrics and methods.
The initial system will be analyzed for each, followed by an investigation of its limita-
tions and exploring the new requirements.

PMS metrics

A traditional NPM-based PMS was initially developed by the Region to cope with the
need of ensuring an integrated transport service, while, at the same time, taking care of
its demand to evaluate the contribution of each single actor involved in the service
delivery. This section discusses the metrics involved in this initial PMS.

From a metrics perspective, the PMS followed the traditional input-output model,
with a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), grouped into efficiency, effectiveness,
and equity, to be collected from each organizational actor in the system. Table 2 syn-
thesizes this set of metrics.

In line with the need to control output promoted by the NPM, the Region empha-
sized the importance of transport service quality and, therefore, the system was
weighted in favor of its effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured by quantifying ser-
vice level, regularity, punctuality, comfort, safety, passenger information, cleanliness,
and the perception of quality. Efficiency was measured in terms of productivity, while
equity considered ticket cost, as this is linked to accessibility to the service on the part
of different categories of users. As an example, service regularity at regional level was
calculated by taking the average of the regularity metrics of all the service providers in
the network. This system, which is aligned to the traditional NPM approach, was
enhanced to suit the network reality. In the attempt to adapt the PMS to the new hybrid
setting, the Region introduced an additional unit of analysis, the entire network, with
the purpose of clearly distinguishing between the responsibilities of individual actors
and network results. When the metrics for each provider were collected, the Region
calculated the network value by summing or taking the average of these organizational

International Review of Public Administration 359

data. As an example, service regularity at the network level was calculated by taking
the average of regularity metrics for all service providers involved in the network itself.

The Region felt that this two-fold unit of analysis, at network and organizational
level, was able to capture in a single dashboard both the performance of individual
actors and the whole regional performance, since organizational data were combined.
Moreover, the Region believed that the unit of analysis of the single organization
helped to identify specific responsibilities: given a certain result for the whole network
in terms of performance, it was immediately possible to evaluate the contribution of
each actor to the entire network value. Limitations to these NPM-based metrics did,
however, appear when the system became operational within the hybrid structure.

The first limitation appeared when the Region wanted to understand the benefits
and problems in such joint working and the impact of collaboration on the network
results. They then realized that there were no indicators in place to monitor the actors’
relationships and cooperation. By introducing two units of analysis, at organizational
level and at whole network level, the Region’s initial ambition was to encourage the
spontaneous cooperation between the transport companies, in order to improve regional
transport performance. In practice, this voluntary cooperation did not materialize and,
on the contrary, service providers were in competition with each other, showing no
willingness to share their data or information with other providers, as emerged from
this interview:

Table 2. Set of NPM-based metrics.

Performance
dimension Description KPI

Efficiency Productivity Bus-km
Cost per bus-Km

Effectiveness Service level n. of municipalities receiving the service
average days of service
n. of service lines

Regularity % bus journeys not provided
% bus journeys ahead of the timetable

Punctuality % of bus journeys under 3 minutes
% of bus journeys under 5 minutes
% of bus journeys under 10 minutes

Comfort n. of bus stops with bus-shelters
n. of bus shelters with benches
n. of buses with air conditioning
n. of buses with provisions for disabled
passengers

Safety n. of buses with video cameras
n. of buses connected to central control

PassengersInformation n. of buses with information
n. of bus shelters with maps
n. of bus stops with timetables
Time it takes for call center to answer

Cleanliness Frequency of bus cleaning service
Frequency of bus shelter cleaning service

Quality perception Customer satisfaction
Equity Tickets Cost of single, weekly, monthly annual tickets

360 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

Why should we share our information about the service with other providers? This data is
useful for us, to improve our own operations (General Director – Transport Provider A).

This lack of cooperation also gave rise to operative problems about service provision.
A minimum level of cooperation was required to simplify the process of establishing
interconnections between the transport services of different providers, but this did not
always occur. The General Director of one of these operators stated that:

In order to align my timetable to that of the other providers, I asked them for their timeta-
ble for that specific transport node. It’s important that passengers on my bus-line arrive in
time and don’t lose their connection because our timetables don’t match up. No timetable
has turned up as the other providers don’t want to share their data with me. In the end, I
was forced to check the timetables on their websites, and even then, they were out of date
(General Director – Transport Provider C).

This scant cooperation underlines the first limitation of an NPM-based PMS, since it
was clear that the status of the relationships between the network actors could not be
understood by simply measuring performance through units of control at organizational
and network levels only. In order to overcome this limitation, the Region revised the
initial PMS and added an additional unit of analysis, that of relationships. In this way,
metrics relating to the actors’ relationships were also collected. Metrics about the quan-
tity and quality of relationships were introduced to check whether the network actors
were cooperating. This issue is connected to the recognition that a network can be good
in terms of activities, but perform poorly in terms of results, and vice versa (Kenis &
Provan, 2009).

Strictly correlated to this aspect, the limitations in the measures of efficiency, effec-
tiveness, and equity were also acknowledged. The Region introduced three perfor-
mance-related aspects that it found useful to support network decisions. For example,
data about service punctuality were used to establish the increase in network target
levels every year. However, during the interviews, it came out that the metrics devel-
oped initially did not provide the information to monitor the most significant aspect of
the network that of resource integration, understood as the available network resources
in terms of the actors’ interconnections. Accordingly, resource integration was an aspect
added to the PMS. Resource integration means evaluating whether separate elements
can be incorporated into a whole. With reference to the local public transport service,
integration was measured in terms of number of integrated tickets, customer perception
about the level of integration, and also the network investment in interconnections and
network personnel.

It followed that the NPM-based PMS was revised from its initial version and
became more relational in nature, with the addition of the unit of control of relation-
ships and the performance dimension of resource integration.

PMS methods

In this section, the NPM-based PMS will be analyzed in terms of methods, which
include several approaches to planning and controlling performance, and auditing
procedures.

With respect to performance planning and control, a hierarchical approach was
introduced. This hierarchy started from the Region, and then moved down to Provinces
and Municipalities, and finally to the service providers. The process of performance
planning and control followed a specific pathway. The Region set the metrics and

International Review of Public Administration 361

standard values that were formalized in service contracts between Provinces or Munici-
palities and service providers.

The path was then reversed, going from providers to Provinces and Municipalities,
and back to the Region during the operations relating to control, where annual perfor-
mance reports were prepared by the providers and, following the reversed hierarchy,
sent to the Region.

The Region was at the centre of this planning and control system, as it decided the
type of metrics to collect, structure of the reports and associated information flow.

Once in place, this centralized and hierarchical system was then criticized by the
service providers, who complained about their lack of involvement. Some providers
opposed the hierarchical approach of the regional managers in defining the indicators to
be included in PMS. In this respect, one of them argued that:

They selected the measures without asking us – the people in charge of delivering the ser-
vice from an operational point of view – which indicators would have been useful in
managing service provision. This is like a restaurant menu, where everything must be veri-
fied subjectively (CFO – Transport Provider B).

Other providers further criticized the Region’s approach, highlighting their reaction to
the hierarchical approach:

We have gone from having no control and almost complete freedom in managing our
operations, to control over everything! We just received these metrics without being ini-
tially involved in their definition. (CFO – Transport Provider D).

These complaints prompted a lively debate between the providers, and also between
the providers and the Provinces or Municipalities and the Region, with the providers’
aim of changing or revising the data initially included. Initially, the dialogue was more
a dispute because it was centered on complaints about performance measures. It then
moved to a more balanced practice of interacting and sharing opinions before making
performance-related decisions, gradually transforming the hierarchical approach to per-
formance planning and control into a more participative practice.

Concerning the auditing procedures, the initial NPM-based PMS was highly formal-
ized. The Regional regulation formally assigned to Provinces and Municipalities the
role of auditing performance measures from service providers on a yearly basis. This
audit process was conceived within the hierarchical structure of reporting, since perfor-
mance measures were collected annually by the providers, transmitted to the Provinces
and Municipalities, who had the role of auditing the data and transmitting them to the
Region, who then elaborated the overall network picture.

This formal auditing role of the Provinces and Municipalities, once in place,
showed its limitations, as attested by the Region itself, and also by the service users.
One Regional representative referred to the Provinces and Municipalities as ‘paper-
pushers’ (interviewee’s words). He said:

Service regulators should verify the data they collect from service providers. Instead, they
simply collect these measures and transmit the reports to us. This is their non-role. After
that we saw some very good performance data, while, at the same time, we received a
number of complaints from users about the same performance. You then start questioning
the role of the Provinces and Municipalities (Transport Unit Administrative Director –
Daphne Region).

A more severe criticism about performance auditing came from transport service users,
one stating:

362 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

Why should I even consider this report? [Referring to published data] The service provider
is self-certifying its work. What can I say? That it is delivering an almost perfect service?
I don’t think I can find reliable information. I prefer to take note of the complaints and
warnings I receive every day from passengers (User Representative A).

This quote highlights the complaints of users, and also their reaction to the limitations
of the current system. To overcome the problem of data reliability, users started audit-
ing the performance results of service providers in an informal way. They used the
real-time data collected daily by passengers and shared through emails and social chan-
nels. A user association was in charge of gathering the travel warnings, forwarding the
data periodically to the Region.

These emails (pointing at his laptop screen) are today’s transport problems. Passengers tell
us about the problems they face when using local public transport, from the air-condition-
ing that is not working to bad punctuality on the tram system, to the poor condition of a
bus-shelter. We track all this information and use it in our internal transport analysis
(General Director – Users’ association).

This practice resulted in moving the auditing process from formal to informal and
user-driven, leading to still another revision of the NPM-based PMS. From a methods
perspective, the initial PMS was reconfigured to introduce wider participation in the
performance planning and control process, and informal auditing procedures based on
the involvement of network actors and service users.

From an NPM-based PMS to a relational and participative PMS

The empirical analysis showed the attempt on the part of the Region to develop a PMS
for the hybrid structure of the network, following the traditional NPM-based paradigm.
Accordingly, the metrics comprised a set of KPIs grouped into the performance dimen-
sions of efficiency, effectiveness, and equity, which were collected using the service
providers as unit of analysis. The unique effort of adapting the PMS to a hybrid struc-
ture was visible at the control unit level, with the introduction of the network unit of
analysis. This choice made by the Region was an attempt to apply the NPM principle
of clearly identifying the centers of responsibility, and the relationships between them,
to the network. Indeed, the intention, at the network level, was to control both the per-
formance of each actor and the overall network service. However, this NPM-based
PMS highlighted its limitations once it became operational. The difficulty of using the
system to evaluate the actors’ cooperation and the network resources called into ques-
tion the validity of the PMS. The main problem was that the NPM-based system did
not account for the distinctive features of hybrid structures with their multiple actors
and inter-organizational relationships. These aspects led to the NPM-based PMS evolv-
ing toward a revised system, which we have defined here as a relational and participa-
tive PMS. This revised PMS differs from the NPM-based system in terms of both
metrics and methods.

The first revised aspect relates to metrics. The relational and participative PMS
involves the introduction of the additional unit of analysis of relationships and the per-
formance dimension of resource integration. Using the unit of analysis of relationships,
it was possible to monitor performance at the relational level, and this improved control
over the interactions between the network actors, a crucial aspect in terms of the
network delivering the transport service. This appeared particularly useful in mandated
networks, such as the network being analyzed here, where there was only limited

International Review of Public Administration 363

willingness among the actors to cooperate. Furthermore, the revised PMS also included
the additional performance dimension of resource integration, with indicators about the
available resources for the network, such as personnel or investments for interconnec-
tions. The importance of adding measures about resource integration derives from a dis-
tinctive feature of inter-organizational relationships, whereby delivering a joint output
can support more effective control of network activities and the actors’ interconnec-
tions.

The second distinctive feature of the relational and participate PMS concerns its
methods. The NPM-based PMS initially relied on a hierarchical and formalized
approach to performance planning, control, and auditing. This approach, however,
showed its limitations when applied to the hybrid organizational structure of the net-
work. It proved impossible to manage all the different actors, in the form of public
administrations and service providers, through a formal hierarchy among the many par-
ties, even in the case of a mandated network. On the contrary, the emergent relational
and participate PMS involved a participative approach between the network actors,
which meant including not only public administrations and business companies, but
also service users, in the process of PMS planning, control, and auditing procedures.
The involvement of users led naturally to a further change to the auditing procedures,
which became more informal, based on the users’ individual experience shared through
emails and social channels.

This relational and participative PMS was not defined top-down a-priori, but
emerged autonomously from the network actors who tried to overcome the limitations
of the NPM-based PMS introduced initially. Table 3 compares the NPM-based PMS
with the emergent relational and participative PMS.

Conclusions

This study investigated the fit of NPM-based PMS in the hybrid setting of public net-
works, by exploring the limitations of performance measures developed under the NPM
paradigm and the new emergent requirements for measuring performance in these
hybrid settings.

The study started by analyzing the distinctive features of an NPM-based PMS,
which has been described as a collection of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) cen-
tered on an input/output model, to be applied in organizations where the hierarchical
structure is clearly defined (Hood, 1991; Jackson & Palmer, 1992; Pollanen, 2005;
Verbeeten, 2008). From this definition, the PMS has been analyzed following its two
main dimensions of metrics and methods.

Table 3. NPM-based PMS and the revised relational and participative PMS.

PMS characteristics NPM-based PMS
Relational and
participative PMS

Metrics Control unit Organization and
whole system

Relationships

Performance dimension Efficiency,
effectiveness, equity

Resource Integration

Methods Approach to performance
planning and control

Hierarchical Participative

Auditing approach Formalized Informal

364 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

The methodological approach of the case study has been adopted by investigating a
local public network in charge of delivering a transport service. This network intro-
duced a PMS following the NPM principles, but problems were encountered once the
system was in place, which led to a further revision of the system itself. The analysis
of the limitations of the PMS introduced, and the emergence of new requirements, lead
to the identification of a revised PMS for hybrid settings, here called relational and par-
ticipate PMS. This new PMS is relational from a metrics perspective, given that it
accounts for the unit of analysis of relationships and the performance dimension of
resource integration, which both support the management and control of multiple actors
and their interconnections. This revised PMS is also participative in the process of per-
formance planning, control, and auditing procedures. Indeed, the simultaneous partic-
ipation of the actors involved in the hybrid structure spontaneously arose during all the
activities related to performance management from planning, implementation and,
finally, auditing. Actors involved comprise, not only public administrations and busi-
ness companies, but also every day users, giving rise to a participative approach to per-
formance management. Indeed, when the audit process is managed with the
contribution of everyday users, this has several implications also in terms of power
issues within the network: rather than having a clear hierarchical line with a central unit
of control, the PMS process becomes decentralized and user-driven.

These findings provide contributions for both academic and practitioners. From an
academic perspective, three main areas are enhanced. The first one concerns the
identification of new requirements for PMS in hybrid settings. Starting from the limita-
tions of the NPM-bases PMS, this study proposes a relational and participative PMS in
order to better fit the new reality of hybrid structures characterized by multiple actors
and inter-organizational relationships. The challenge of this PMS with respect to an
NPM-based system lies in both measures and methods. On the one hand, the revised
PMS is suggested to evaluate the unit of analysis of relationships and to quantify the
level of resource integration. This variation is required in order to control interactions
among actors and their willingness to cooperate, an aspect that was ignored by the
previous system. On the other hand, the revised PMS is characterized by a participative
approach to the entire process of performance planning, control, and auditing. This fur-
ther revision enhances the actors’ motivation to be part of the greater whole of the net-
work, prompting their active collaboration in network management and control. The
proposed relational and participative PMS contributes to extant literature on perfor-
mance measures in the public sector, moving ahead from an NPM-based paradigm that
was well suited in a public administration context characterized by the centrality of
public administrations (Hood, 1991; Verbeeten, 2008), by suggesting ad hoc measures
and methods to fit the new reality of hybrid structures. The proposed PMS supports the
idea that the specific features of network relationships demand ad hoc measures, which
move beyond service effectiveness, by including the ability to establish relationships
and share resources, further supporting the position by other authors (e.g. Mandell &
Keast, 2007). Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature specifically focused
on measures for hybrid settings (e.g. Provan & Milward, 2001), suggesting that mea-
sures do matter, but for hybrid settings to work, these measures need to be associated
with a participative approach to performance management, control, and auditing.
Specifically, the proposed PMS underlines the importance to move away from top-
down network evaluation by endorsing participative approaches based on actors’
involvement in order to obtain these new network measures. This participative
approach can provide benefits, not only in terms of reliability of the collected data, but

International Review of Public Administration 365

also in terms of network functioning by further stimulating actors interacting with each
other and therefore reinforcing existent network relationships.

The second academic contribution recognizes the importance to manage and control
hybrid structures through a PMS, rather than relying on informal approaches only. This
aspect is not obvious, given that the relevance of a PMS has been questioned by some
studies (Kenis & Provan, 2006; Romzek et al., 2012), which considered performance
measurement not adequate in these new organizational arrangements. The present study
suggests that PMS does matter in hybrid contexts in order to support network manage-
ment and actors’ motivation, but it should be revised by considering the specific fea-
tures of multiple actors and inter-organizational relationships.

The third and last contribution for academic literature is related to the growing
importance of service users within these new hybrid organizational structures in charge
of public service delivery. Users, rather than being passive receivers of public services,
have emerged to play an active role in performance management by auditing network
actors’ data on the basis of their everyday experience with the public service. This find-
ing contributes to extant public administration literature that recognizes the centrality of
service users (e.g. Liao & Zhang, 2012; Nam, 2013) by including their active role in
the process to audit service providers’ reports and network data. The increasing impor-
tance of users might have potential impact also on power relationships within hybrid
structures, by altering the equilibrium among the involved actors. Further research can
explore the impact of users’ involvement in hybrid structures and associated power
dynamics.

From a practitioner perspective, this study provides managers of hybrid structures
with some practical details on how to design a PMS for these organizational structures.
The relational and participative PMS suggests that traditional measures to quantify effi-
ciency and effectiveness of public services must be complemented with ad hoc metrics
to quantify relationships, intended as the ability of the actors involved to exploit their
activity in collaboration with the other partners, and the integrated resources devoted to
these new settings. Furthermore, suggestions are provided also in terms of managing
the new relational and participative PMS: managers of hybrid structures are recom-
mended to involve other actors in charge of service delivery and service users, giving
rise to a participative approach to the process of PMS design, and then auditing these
practices once implemented. The reasons behind these changes in both metrics and
methods that characterize the relational and participative PMS lies in a better support to
both decision-making and motivation within hybrid settings. Indeed, while in the past
the central role of public administration was required to manage public services, this
assertion does not hold in hybrid structures, where public administrations also become
one actor within a greater whole. Empirical evidence, furthermore, suggests that, even
without revising the traditional NPM-based PMS, the system autonomously evolves
toward a more relational and participative system. Some additional studies are required
in order to explore the validity of these findings in other hybrids; we focused on public
networks, but some other research could apply the same analysis to other hybrid struc-
tures, such as partnerships or alliances.

Note

1. In Italy, in terms of administration, central government is organized locally into Regional adminis-

trations, further divided into smaller territorial areas called Provinces and Municipalities.

366 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

Notes on contributors

Deborah Agostino is Assistant Professor at Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management,
Economics and Industrial Engineering. Her research interests cover mainly two areas. The first
area is related to performance management in public networks, with a specific focus on networks
for the provision of the local public transport. The second area of investigation covers perfor-
mance measurement systems in the social media era. Her publications can be found in Public
Management Review, European Management Journal and Public Relations Review. Email:
deborah.agostino@polimi.it

Michela Arnaboldi is Full Professor at Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Eco-
nomics and Industrial Engineering. Her research activity is mainly focused on two areas: manag-
ing performance in the Public Sector and the evolution of Management Control Systems. This
second issue has been carried out along two dimensions: the analysis of the relationship between
budgeting system and enterprise risk management; the investigation of the role of management
control system in private-public networks. Some of her publications can be found in Accounting
Organizations and Society, Financial Accountability and Management Accounting Research.
Email: michela.arnaboldi@polimi.it

References

Agostino, D., & Arnaboldi, M. (2013). How Performance Measurement Systems support manage-

rial actions in networks: Evidence from an Italian case study. Public Organization Review:
Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0264-5

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local
governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Andrews, K., & Kouzmin, A. (1999). ‘Naming the Rose’: New public management discourse in
the Brazilian context. International Review of Public Administration, 4, 11–20.

Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical
exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 20, 679–701.

Bouckaert, G., & van Doren, W. (2003). Performance measurement and management in public
sector organisations. In T. Bovaird & E. Lofler (Eds.), Public management and governance
(pp. 151–164). London: Routledge.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2014). Performance and accountability—a theoretical discussion
and an empirical assessment. Public Organization Review: Advance online publication.
doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0267-2

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The practices and politics of interpretation. In M. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 897–922, 2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of
managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87, 892–909.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 532–550.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.
Hood, C. (1995). The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93–109.
Jackson, P. M., & Palmer, B. (1992). Developing performance monitoring in public sector

organizations (pp. 1–35). The Management Centre: University of Leicester.
James, O. (2001). New public management in the UK: Enduring legacy or fatal remedy?

International Review of Public Administration, 6, 15–26.
Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2006). The control of public networks. International Public

Management Journal, 9, 227–247.
Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2009). Towards and exogenous theory of public network

performance. Public Administration, 87, 440–456.

International Review of Public Administration 367

mailto:deborah.agostino@polimi.it

mailto:michela.arnaboldi@polimi.it

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0264-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11115-013-0267-2

Kickert, W. J. M. (2001). Public management of hybrid organizations: Governance of
quasi-autonomous executive agencies. International Public Management Journal, 4,
135–150.

Kim, J. (2006). Networks, network governance, and networked networks. International Review of
Public Administration, 11, 19–34.

Koppenjan, J., & Koliba, C. (2013). Transformations towards new public governance: Can the
new paradigm handle complexity? International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 1–8.

Kurunmäki, L., & Miller, P. (2006). Modernizing government: The calculating self, hybridization
and performance measurement. Financial Accountability and Management, 22, 87–106.

Guthrie, J., & English, L. (1997). Performance information and programme evaluation in the
Australian public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10, 154–164.

Lapsley, I. (2008). The NPM agenda: Back to the future. Financial Accountability and
Management, 24, 77–96.

Lee, S. J. & Yoo, D. S. (2012). The adoption of collaborative governance institutions: The
EPA-States Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAS). International Review of Public
Administration, 17, 143–161.

Leishman, F., Cope, S., & Starie, P. (1995). Reforming the police in Britain: New public
management, policy networks and a tough ‘old bill’. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 8, 26–37.

Liao, Y. & Zhang, Y. (2012). Citizen participation in local budgeting: Mechanisms, political
support, and city manager’s moderating role. International Review of Public Administration,
17, 19–38.

Mandell, M., & Keast, R. L. (2007). Evaluating network arrangements: Toward revised
performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 574–597.

McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we
know it. International Review of Public Administration, 66, 33–43.

Miller, P., Kurunmäki, L., & O’Learly, T. (2008). Accounting, hybrids and the management of
risk. Accounting Organizations and Society, 33, 942–967.

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2004). Testing how management matters in an era of
government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 15, 421–439.

Nam, T. (2013). Citizen participation in visioning a progressive city: A case study of Albany
2030. International Review of Public Administration, 18, 139–161.

Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8, 377–387.
Pollanen, R. M. (2005). Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in

Canadian context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18, 4–24.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In L. L.

Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 295–336).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (2003). Evaluating the audit explosion. Law and Policy, 25, 185–202.
Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public

sector organizational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public
Administration Review, 72, 638–648.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of network effectiveness: A
comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 1–33.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating
public sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61, 413–423.

Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of
effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9
(1), 1–32.

Romzek, B. S., Leroux, K., & Blackmar, J. M. (2012). A preliminary theory of informal account-
ability among network organizational actors. Public Administration Review, 72, 442–453.

Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and
accountability challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 621–631.

Sanderson, I. (2001). Performance management, evaluation and learning in model local
government. Public Administration, 79, 297–313.

368 D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi

Thomasson, A. (2009). Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organizations: A stakeholders
approach. Financial Accountability and Management, 25, 353–366.

Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010). Networking literature about
determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 88, 528–550.

Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations:
Impact on performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 427–454.

Wiesel, F., & Modell, S. (2014). From new public management to new public governance?
Hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism. Financial Accountability and
Management, 30, 175–205.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.

International Review of Public Administration 369

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Abstract
Introduction
NPM and performance measurement
Hybrid settings and PMS
Methodology

Research setting
Data collection and analysis

Results

PMS metrics
PMS methods
From an NPM-based PMS to a relational and participative PMS

Conclusions

Note

Notes on con�trib�u�tors

References

Examining the Relationship between Civil Servant
Perceptions of Organizational Culture and Job Attitudes:
in the Context of the New Public Management Reform
in South Korea

Ji Sung Kim1 & Seung-Hyun Han2

Published online: 28 December 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract This study investigates the relationship between public officials’ perceptions
of organizational culture and their job attitudes, particularly emphasizing a mediating
role of job satisfaction under the new public management reform in South Korea.
Data collected from Korean civil servants indicate that perceptions of the competing
values rooted in different organizational culture types—clan, market, hierarchy, and
adhocracy—differentially affect their job attitudes. In addition, the findings show the
mediating influence of job satisfaction between public officials’ perceptions of organiza-
tional culture and organizational commitment.

Keywords Perceived organizational culture . Job satisfaction . Organizational
commitment . Competing values framework

Introduction

In contrast to the popular belief that BHappy workers are productive^ the organizational
behavior literature argues that direct and distinct relationships between job attitudes and
job performance are generally poor (Latham 2007; Bowling 2007) and instead vary
considerably across contexts and with job complexity (Judge et al. 2001; Triandis 1994).
Studies investigating this relationship within the context of relational dynamics such as
leader-member exchange have indicated that a job environment is more important to

Public Organiz Rev (2017) 17:157–17

DOI 10.1007/s11115-016-0372-0

The original version of this article was revised: The caption of Fig. 2 is not correct. Figure 2 caption should
read as ‘Fig. 2 Competing values framework (K. S. Cameron and Quinn (2011))’

* Seung-Hyun Han
calebhan@uga.edu

1 Korea University, Seoul, South Korea
2 University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11115-016-0372-0&domain=pdf

understand the effects of employees’ attitudes on job performance (Harris et al. 2009;
Triandis 1994).

Although organizational culture has not been a major focus of research examining
job attitudes, and there have been few references to organizational culture among the
major reviews and meta-analyses on the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of
job attitudes (Bowling 2007; Judge et al. 2001; Meyer et al. 2010), a growing body of
research includes organizational culture, one aspect of the job environment, particularly
as an antecedent of job attitudes (Farh et al. 2007; Jackson 2002; Kim 2014; Ng et al.
2009; Saari and Judge 2004). Furthermore, in spite of great diversity among definitions
and measures of organizational culture, some researchers have argued that organiza-
tional culture provides a lens for a better understanding of job attitudes, in that
organizational culture directly and indirectly influences job attitudes, as well as their
antecedents (Martin 1992; Trice and Beyer 1992). Nonetheless, there are only few
established frameworks that explain how organizational culture affects employees’ job
attitudes and, in turn, their behaviors in public management research (Ajzen 2006;
Jackson 2002). Although several studies (e.g., Goulet and Frank 2002; Moon 2000;
Wright and Davis 2003) have found different results in levels of job attitudes across
different sectors, studies have not generally examined differences associated with
organizational culture, and there have been a dearth of studies simultaneously investi-
gating direct and indirect relationships among organizational culture, job satisfaction
(JS), and organizational commitment (OC) in the public sector. Investigating the
relationships between cultural elements and job attitudes could provide new under-
standings, particularly because values, which are seen as the core of organizational
culture (Peters and Waterman 1982), have been shown to affect job attitudes (Eby and
Dobbins 1997; Locke 1976). This study sheds light on the notion that culture, which
includes shared values, is an important factor influencing job outcomes but there is
variation in how employees perceive culture within an organization and the variation
can lead to different outcomes with respect to job attitudes. This is important because
perception, rather than an Bobjective reality,^ will influence attitudes and behaviors.

The goal of this research is to increase our understanding of how employee
perception of cultural elements, i.e., values, influences their job attitudes in the context
of the New Public Management (NPM, hereafter) Reform in South Korea. First, this
study investigates the relationship between employee perception of organizational
culture and job attitudes in the public sector, focusing specifically on whether values
associated with different types of organizational culture have different impacts on
employee attitudes. Second, this study examines whether JS mediates the relationship
between employee perception of organizational culture and OC.

The following section introduces the research context and the theoretical back-
ground of this study. Then empirical evidence used to develop the conceptual model
is presented (see Fig. 1). Next, the methods used for this study are described and the
results of data analyses are reported. Lastly, findings and implications for theory and
practice are discussed.

Research Context

To explore the relationship between public employees’ perception of culture and job
attitudes, this research studies civil servants from a Korean government ministry during

158 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

a time that involved a number of mergers and reorganizations. Since the governmental
restructuring in 2008 by Lee Myoung-bak administration, most of the government
ministries were reorganized in order to achieve a small but practical government that is
effective and serves people first. During this process, the 18-Ministry and 4-Office
system of the previous administration was reorganized into a 15-Ministry and 2-Office
system through the integration or relocation of departments and offices. This reorgani-
zation, which was in line with themes of NPM, pointedly emphasized values and
attributes of market and adhocracy cultures. Its stated goals—to attain efficiency and
effectiveness, decrease redundant organizations, and ultimately to decrease the number of
employees, while emphasizing that government needs to serve its citizens (Min 2008)—
are clearly line with NPM principles. It should be noted that NPM, a globally prevailing
managerial paradigm to enhance efficiency in the public sector, has proliferated in Korea
since the 1990s, and has shifted the focus of public management from an emphasis on the
implementation of formal rules based on hierarchical structures to an emphasis on client-
oriented performance improvement in market-oriented and entrepreneurial ways
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Parker and Bradley 2000). This period of organizational
change provides an interesting context for surfacing the effect of organizational culture
on employee attitudes in the public sector.

Organizational Culture and Values

Over the past three decades, there have been varying conceptions of culture (Martin
1992; Schein 1991). Nevertheless, there is a clear message from scholars in a variety of
fields that culture plays a critical role with respect to organizational performance. Much
of the literature regarding organizational culture emphasizes the notion of shared
assumptions (Schein 2010), attitudes and perceptions that bind organizational mem-
bers together and influence how they think about themselves, their coworkers, and
their work (Alvesson 2002; Palthe and Kossek 2003), as well as values and
behaviors and environmental and organizational realities that influence an organiza-
tion (Kopelman et al. 1990). Schein’s (1981, 1990, 2010), conceptual framework of
culture, which has been especially influential in the study of organizational culture,
defines culture as Bthings that group members share or hold in common^ (2010, p. 16),
and emphasizes that culture involves assumptions, values, beliefs, adaptations,
perceptions, and learning.

Perception of
Organizational

Culture

Organizational
Commitment

Job
Satisfaction

Fig. 1 Conceptual model

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 159

Not all researchers define culture as the ‘thing’ that holds the organization together.
Martin (1992), for example, argues that organizational cultures are not necessarily
unifying. She notes that culture is not static over time and that several different cultures
can exist in the same organization. Thus, any definition of culture needs to take into
account the possibility of competing subcultures that are a fact of life in the organiza-
tion. In this regards, the Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron and Quinn
2011) is noteworthy because it provides an organizing mechanism that sees organiza-
tions as having a dominant culture, but also recognizes that culture may change over
time. Moreover, focusing on cultural values, CVF recognizes that subunits within an
organization can have their own unique culture. Shared cultural values can be regarded
as the crucial source of variation among organizational groups.

Competing Values Framework (CVF)

The Competing Values Framework (CVF) was developed using multidimensional scaling
by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981) in an attempt to make sense of the organizational
effectiveness literature, which provided contradictory definitions of organizational effec-
tiveness and explanations of what makes an organization effective. The framework
explains how people evaluate organizations and how organizations are characterized by
a particular set of shared beliefs and values (Arsenault and Faerman 2014; Hartnell et al.
2010; Lund 2003). CVF also clarifies how values, as a key component of organizational
culture, are communicated in organizations (Gregory et al. 2009; Helfrich et al. 2007;
Mohr et al. 2012).

According to CVF, organizational culture can be measured along two dimensions or
axes. The first focuses on the level of flexibility and individuality versus stability and
organizational structuring; the second focuses on the degree to which attention is paid
to internal organizational dynamics versus the external environment and the organiza-
tion’s competitive position (Cameron and Quinn 2011). When juxtaposed, the two axes
create four domains that represent four distinct cultures: Hierarchy, Clan, Adhocracy,
and Market (see Fig. 2).

Internal Focus External Focus

Flexibility

Clan Culture

Human relations

Cohesion

Mentoring

Morale

Perceived organizational Support

Adhocracy Culture

Dynamic & entrepreneurial

Adapt to changes

Acquisition of resources

Flexibility

Innovation & openness

Growth

Stability

Hierarchy Culture

Coordination & efficiency

Adherence to bureaucratic rules &

procedures

Stability & predictability

Market Culture

Result oriented

Rational goals & clarity of tasks

Competition

Achievement

Fig. 2 Competing values framework (K. S. Cameron and Quinn (2011))

160 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

The four cultures depicted in CVF represent a member’s values about an organiza-
tion; what they define as good, right, and appropriate; and which core values are used
for forming judgments and taking action (Goodman et al. 2001). The clan culture is
characterized by cohesion, morale and an emphasis on human resource development.
The adhocracy culture reflects a dynamic, entrepreneurial, and creative work environ-
ment that aims to grow and acquire resources through flexibility and readiness. The
market culture focuses on getting the job done, and achieving productivity and
efficiency. Finally, the hierarchy culture emphasizes a clear organizational structure,
effective information management, and well-defined responsibilities and bureaucratic
structures. Examining organizational culture based on the cultural attributes associated
with the two value dimensions—internal/external focus and flexibility/stability—sheds
light on how culture might influence employees’ attitudes (Cameron and Quinn 2011).

Although there is no one superior or ideal culture, organizations tend to develop a
dominant orientation over time as they respond to challenges and changes in the
environment (Schein 1991). As is true of individuals, organizations tend to respond
to challenges and changes by amplifying their core cultural values so that various
attributes of organizational culture become more solidified and prominent (Cameron
and Quinn 2011). Cameron et al. (2007) note that while some organizations have a
dominant type of culture, others have multiple cultures working simultaneously in
different locations and departments.

Organizational Commitment (OC)

OC is a theoretical construct that examines employee-organization psychological linkages.
According to Mowday et al. (1982), OC includes employees’ acceptance of organizational
values and goals, their willingness to make strong efforts to support their organization in
order to attain organizational goals, and their intention to maintain organizational mem-
bership. In contrast, Allen and Meyer’s (1990) definition of OC, which is one of the most
commonly referred to in recent studies, examines three components of commitment1—
affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment—only one
of which focuses on employees’ acceptance of organizational goals. Common to these
three components of OC, however, is the idea of a Bpsychological state that links an
individual to an organization^ (Allen and Meyer 1990, p. 14).

In extant OC studies, change initiatives, managerial paradigms, sectoral differences,
and job insecurity have been shown to be antecedent variables of OC (e.g., Siegel et al.
2005; Perryer and Jordan 2005). In addition, OC has been found to predict organiza-
tional effectiveness and job performance (Riketta 2008; Sturges et al. 2005), as well as
such job-related behaviors as turnover (e.g., Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe 2003;
Sturges et al. 2005), intention to quit (e.g., Cole and Bruch 2006; Powell and Meyer
2004), and extra-role behaviors (e.g., Carmeli 2005; Mowday et al. 1982). Based on
empirical evidence of affective commitment as the strongest and the most consistent

1 BAffective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involve-
ment in the organization… Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with
leaving the organization… Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue
employment.^ (Meyer and Allen 1997, p. 11).

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 161

construct related to organizational behaviors, this study focused on affective commit-
ment as outcome in the research model.

Job Satisfaction (JS)

Job satisfaction (JS) is arguably one of the most explored work orientation variables in
organizational studies over the last five decades (Anderson et al. 2001). In general, JS
has been defined as the Bemotional state of liking one’s job,^ which results from
employees’ job experiences (Locke 1976, p. 1300). Additionally, Ivancevich et al.
(2007) point out that JS reflects employees’ perception of whether they fit into their
organizations.

A substantial amount of empirical research has presented JS as an antecedent to
affective commitment (e.g., Mowday et al. 1982; Vandenberg and Scarpello 1990).
In addition, JS has been found to be a strong predictor of such organizational
outcome variables as absenteeism, turnover, work performance, and prosocial
behaviors (e.g., Tett and Meyer 1993; Trevor 2001). JS has also been studied as a
dependent variable that is influenced by employees’ personal characteristics and job
characteristics such as pay, promotion, job design, and having influence over goal
setting (Agho et al. 1993; O’Leary-Kelly and Griffin 1995).

Relationships among Perception of Organizational Culture and OC, and JS

Only a few studies have employed CVF to investigate the relationship between
employee perception of organizational cultures and employees’ job attitudes (e.g.,
Lund 2003). However, as Howard (1998) notes, CVF provides us with a Bdescriptive
content^ (p. 232) of organizational culture; it specifies configurations of organizational
culture; and it provides tools for measuring and analyzing organizational culture.
Moreover, values, which are central to CVF, have been regarded as a key element of
organizational culture (Boxx et al. 1991; Braunscheidel et al. 2010; Robert and Wasti
2002), and are considered to be more tangible than assumptions and more stable than
artifacts (Howard 1998). Thus, this study contributes to the literature by using an
organizational culture framework that explicitly reflects values.

Although little research has examined the influence of perceived organizational
culture on job attitudes using CVF, some studies contribute to our understanding of
this relationship. For example, using Cameron and Freeman’s (1991) version of CVF to
measure organizational culture, Lund (2003) found that overall JS is higher in per-
ceived clan and adhocracy cultures, which focus on flexibility and spontaneity, than in
perceived market and hierarchy cultures, which focus on control and stability.
Similarly, researchers employing Wallach’s (1983) Organizational Culture Index to
measure organizational cultures2 have found that strong perceived bureaucratic cultures
negatively affect employees’ JS and OC, whereas cultures valuing innovation and
people in the organization positively influence employees’ job attitudes (Lok and

2 Wallach’s (1983) supportive culture, innovative culture, and bureaucratic culture, with orientations of culture
related to people, innovation, and [stable] bureaucratic structure, respectively, are close to clan culture,
adhocracy culture, and hierarchy culture from CVF, in terms of what each culture values in an organization.

162 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

Crawford 2001; Odom et al. 1990; Silverthorne 2004). Since JS and OC have been
shown to have a positive relationship, Hypotheses 1a through 1d are suggested.

Hypothesis 1a: Perceived adhocracy culture will be positively associated with
both their JS and OC.
Hypothesis 1b: Perceived clan culture will be positively associated with both their
JS and OC.
Hypothesis 1c: Perceived hierarchical culture will be negatively associated with
both their JS and OC.
Hypothesis 1d: Perceived market culture will be negatively associated with both
their JS and OC.

This study also examines a mediating effect of JS on the relationship between
perceived organizational culture and OC. While arguments have been made regarding
their conceptual redundancy, JS and OC have been shown to be distinct variables in
that OC focuses on employees’ attitudes toward the organization as a whole, whereas
JS focuses on specific job characteristics (Vandenberg and Lance 1992). Investigating
these two job attitudes in the context of their relationship to perceived organizational
culture could thus be informative and further clarify their conceptual distinction.

Although some studies have found that JS and OS have a reciprocal relationship
(e.g., Huang and Hsiao 2007), most research has assumed that JS influences OC
(Buchanan 1974; Mowday et al. 1982; Reichers 1985) or that it plays a role as an
intervening variable within relationships between other variables (e.g., structural deter-
minants) and OC (e.g., Gaertner 1999; Lok and Crawford 2001; Markovits et al. 2010;
Mueller and Lawler 1999; Wallace 1995). For example, using Meyer and Allen’s
(1991) three-component model of OC, Clugston (2000) found that OC played a
partially mediating role between JS and employees’ intent to leave. Similarly,
Williams and Hazer (1986) found that JS mediates the relationship between all
independent variables they studied (i.e., age, pre-employment expectations, perceived
job characteristics, and the consideration dimension of leadership style) and OC.
Arguably, JS, which is associated with job-specific characteristics, would more likely
to be influenced by changes in working conditions than would OC, which would likely
be more influenced by other components outside of the job (Mueller and Lawler 1999;
Vandenberg and Lance 1992). Thus, we this study proposes that JS will mediate the
relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC
will be mediated through JS.

Methods

According to the research purpose, this study included the ministries that were created
by integrating two or more central government agencies.3 That is, the ministries that
were not merged were excluded from the data set. The survey was conducted by the

3 To ensure confidentiality as requested, we will not reveal actual name of the ministry here.

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 163

Ministry of Public Administration and Security (MOPAS) including a wide range of
information such as sex, age, positions, tenure, and so forth. The data collection method
ensured that each employee could only respond once. In total, 421 of 749 public
employees completed the survey, yielding a 56.07 % response rate.

As shown in Table 1, 73.5 % of the respondents were male and 25.6 % were female;
6.1 % were in the 20–29 age group, 37.5 % were in the 30–39 age group, 40.8 % were
in the 40–49 age group, and 14.6 % were in the 50 or older age group. Regarding job
position, 15.44 % of the respondents were at a managerial level (grade 4 or higher). In
terms of years in current position, 22.1 % had been in their job less than 5 years, 13.7 %
had been in their job between 6 and 10 years, 19.1 % had been in their job between 11
and 15 years, 18.5 % had been in their job between 16 and 20 years, and 25.5 % had
been in their job over 20 years.

Since the data were not collected using random sampling, this study statistically
tested whether sample proportions matched proportions of subgroups in the population,
examining both the gender ratio and distributions of employees’ job grades in annual
statistical reports of MOPAS. Our analyses showed no statistically significant differ-
ences in terms of gender ratio or ratio of managers to non-managers (two-sample
proportion ratio test: z = −0.3547, p > .10 for gender ratio; z = −0.6857, p > .10 for
manager ratio) (Table 2).

The survey used three instruments to measure the constructs in our conceptual
framework. All instruments have previously shown acceptable levels of reliability
and validity. Perceived organizational culture was measured using the 16 items of
the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)4 (Cameron and Quinn

Table 1 Sample demographic
data

Variables Values Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 267 63.

Female 152 36.1

Age 20s 28 6.7

30s 204 48.5

40s 138 32.8

50s 50 11.8

Job rank 3rd grade or higher 6 1.4

4th grade 44 10.5

5th grade 143 34.0

6th grade or lower 218 51.8

Seniority 5 years of less 109 25.9

6 ~ 10 years 84 20.0

11 ~ 15 years 84 20.0

16 ~ 20 years 63 15.0

20 years or more 76 18.0

421 100

4 Since we focused on intra-organizational variability with regard to employee perception of culture, we used
individual-level data and used individuals as the level of analysis.

164 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

2011). Based on CVF, four attributes of culture—dominant characteristics, orga-
nizational leadership, organizational glue, management of employees—were mea-
sured. To measure affective commitment, Allen and Meyer’s (1990) Affective
Commitment Scale (ACS) items were used. The items focus on employees’
feelings such as emotional attachment and dedication to the organization. A
sample question is BI feel a strong sense of belonging to my organizations.^

Job satisfaction was measured using the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) (Hackman
and Oldham 1975). This instrument measures both employees’ overall JS such as
general satisfaction, internal work motivation, and growth satisfaction, and employees’
satisfaction with specific job facets—job security, compensation, co-workers, and
supervisor. A sample question is BMy job allows me be gone on my own to perform
work my own.^

Results

Following a two-step analytical procedure, this study first examined the measurement
model, and then used the structural model to test the proposed hypotheses. Covariation
data was used as input to LISREL (Version 8.80). This section describes the results of
data analyses, including descriptive statistics, reliability and validity statistics from the
measurement structure, and results of the tests of the hypotheses.

Figure 3 shows the perceived cultural profile of the sample organization. Overall,
attributes associated with each cultural type emerged and no one culture dominates over
the others. Nevertheless, employees perceive attributes of market culture to be the
strongest across the four types of culture, followed by attributes of hierarchy, clan, and
adhocracy cultures, although the differences are generally small (Market: 4.52, hierarchy:
4.48, clan: 4.50, adhocracy: 4.20).

The Measurement Model Prior to testing the study hypotheses, tests of reliability and
validity were conducted to ensure that the measures used in the study had appropriate
psychometric properties (Kaplan 2008). Inter-construct correlation coefficient estimates,
Cronbach alpha (α) coefficients (Cronbach 1951; Cronbach and Shavelson 2004), and

Table 2 Descriptive analysis and inter-construct correlation coefficients

M SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Adhocracy 4.20 1.16 0.55 (0.87)

2. Market 4.52 1.08 0.56 0.855 (0.85)

3. Hierarchy 4.50 1.13 0.57 0.847 0.793 (0.87)

4. Clan 4.48 1.07 0.54 0.739 0.768 0.816 (0.80)

5. Job Satisfaction 2.74 0.69 0.59 0.440 0.387 0.424 0.388 (0.85)

6. Organizational Commitment 3.22 0.76 0.69 0.390 0.402 0.457 0.437 0.645 (0.86)

n = 421. All correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates are reported on the main diagonal

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 165

factor loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were all examined. Table 2 shows
inter-construct correlations and Cronbach α coefficients along with descriptive statistics.

To examine convergent validity for each factor, average variance shared between
each construct and its measure was calculated (Gall 2003). According to Fornell and
Larcker (1981), the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) should be 0.50 or above. As
seen in Table 2, all AVE statistics were greater than 0.50. In addition, the Cronbach α
coefficients for all measurement constructs are acceptable (above .80), indicating that
all measures have appropriate levels of reliability.

Since the four attributes of culture show high correlations with one another, a
multicollinearity test was conducted using the variance inflation factor (VIF) to verify
the existence of four distinct organizational cultures (see Table 3).5 The VIFs for the
four culture dimensions fell in the range of 3.16 to 4.67, which are smaller than 10, the
standard criterion suggested by Pedhazur (1997). Thus, this study concludes that
multicollinearity problem does not exist.

Finally, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the OCAI measures was
conducted (see Table 4) using the following indices to test the model: (1) goodness-of-

5 Although the four cultures are conceptually distinct, one should expect high statistical correlations among the
cultural measures because the four cultures emerge from two dimensions, and so overlap in focus. For
example, clan and adhocracy share an emphasis on flexibility; clan and hierarchy are both internally-
focused; and so on. Tests of multicollinearity allow us to examine the degree to which this affects the
statistical analysis.

Table 3 Collinearity test of OCAI dimensions

Mean S.D. Tolerance VIF

Adhocracy 4.20 1.16 .215 4.661

Market 4.52 1.07 .317 3.156

Clan 4.50 1.13 .214 4.672

Hierarchy 4.48 1.07 .247 4.045

3.5

4.5

5.5
Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan

External

Internal Control

Flexibility

Fig. 3 Cultural profile of the sample organization

166 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

fit index (GFI); (2) adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI); (3) comparative fit index (CFI);
(4) normed fit index (NFI); and (5) root mean square residual (RMR). The CFA analysis
results substantiate the adequacy of the item-to-factor associations and the number of
dimensions underlying the proposed model (Hair et al. 2009), providing further evidence
of construct validity in the OCAI model.

The Structural Model To test the hypotheses, the data was analyzed based on the
structural model (see Fig. 4) using the maximum likelihood method to estimate the model.
Figure 4 shows estimated path coefficients and the associated t-values of the paths.
The fit statistics indicate that the research model provides a good fit to the data
(CFI = .97; NFI = .97; RMR = .03). The indices are within the range that suggests
a good model fit. This study therefore proceeded to test the specified paths for the
specific hypotheses.

Collective associations among the exogenous and endogenous variables, path coef-
ficient estimates for all relationships among the constructs, and standardized path

Table 4 CFA analysis results of OCAI measures

Models GFI AGFI CFI NFI RMR

Adhocracy 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.01

Market 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.02

Clan 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.01

Hierarchy 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.02

(Note: ** p<0.01)

Adhoc-
racy

Market

Clan

Hierarchy

Job
Satisfaction

Commit-
ment

-0.23 (-1.08)

0.26 (1.37)

0.60** (17.82)
0.06 (0.29)

1.16**
(6.07)

-0.50**
(-3.33)

-0.44**
(-2.81)

-0.45**(-2.77)

0.86** (6.84)

Fig. 4 SEM results with standardized path coefficients

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 167

coefficient estimates were examined to determine the overall effect sizes of each
relationship (Hair et al. 2009; Kline 2010). As the standard determinant for the
statistical significance of standardized path coefficients, a cut-off t-value (t-value ≥
|1.96|) was applied (Kline 2010).

Figure 4 shows that not all types of perceived organizational culture have a
significant effect on employees’ attitudes. In particular, a non-significant direct paths
were found for the adhocracy culture (γ1 = −.23; |t| = 1.08 and γ2 = 0.26; |t| = 1.37).
Employees’ perceptions of clan and hierarchy culture in their organizations have a
statically significant direct effect on both JS (γ5 = 1.16; |t| = 6.07 and γ7 = −.50;
|t| = 3.33, respectively) and OC (γ6 = −0.45; |t| = 2.77 and γ8 = 0.86; |t| = 6.84,
respectively). Market culture perceived by individuals do not have a significantly
negative effect on JS (γ3 = 0.06; |t| = 0.29), but do have a significantly negative effect
on employees’ OC (γ4 = 0.44; |t| = 2.81).

Although perceived clan culture appears to have a negative effect on OC, there
is a need to consider the total effects of the cultural dimensions on OC, which are
composed of both direct effects and indirect effects through JS. Table 5 shows that
employees’ perceptions of the attributes of the clan culture ultimately have a
positive effect on OC because the indirect effects through JS are larger than the negative
direct effect.

Finally, according to the path coefficients estimates (β1 = .60; |t| = 17.82), overall JS
plays mediating role in the relationship between organizational culture and employees’
OC. Table 6 shows the summarized results for the hypothesis tests.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the direct and inverse relationship between
perceived organizational culture and employees’ attitude. Overall, our findings showed
that different attributes of organizational culture differently affect JS and OC. Perceived
values of clan culture positively affect employees’ JS, but negatively affect employees’
commitment to their organization in terms of the direct effect, whereas perceived
attributes of hierarchy culture negatively influence employees’ JS but positively affect
their OC. Moreover, perceived values of market culture in the organization did not
affect JS but negatively affected OC.

It is interesting that the directions of the path coefficients from perceived organizational
culture to JS were in line with the hypotheses, while the path coefficients from perceived
organizational culture to OC, except in the case of market culture, were not. That is, our
findings indicate that employees’ perception of clan culture decreases the level of OC

Table 5 Total causal effects between organizational culture and OC

Paths to OC Indirect effects (through JS) Direct effects Total effects

Market N/A -.44 -.44

Clan (1.16)*(.60) = .696 -.45 .25

Hierarchy (−.50)*(.60) = −.30 .86 .56

168 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

[through a direct path] whereas their perception of hierarchical culture enhances their
commitment. In addition, values associated with market culture—competition and a
result-orientation—appear to negatively affect employees’ commitment. Thus, despite
the fact that Korean government has adopted NPM practices that emphasize market-
oriented values and customer-oriented performance, public employees might thus still
prefer organizational stability and integration values over competitiveness and change.

Interestingly, the directions of path coefficients to JS and OC are opposite although
JS mediates the relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC. The
negative relationship in the direct path between attributes of clan culture and OC might
be related to the specific focus of commitment. Clan culture focuses on teamwork and
concern for people, which might induce employees to commit to coworkers or super-
visors rather than to their organization.

Theoretical Implications Given that public and private sector organizations are dis-
tinct with regard to organizational culture, structures, work environments, job charac-
teristics, and job attitudes (Moon 2000; Rainey 2009), there is a need to investigate
these relationships further in the public sector. This study suggests several important
implications for theory. Overall, the findings present additional empirical support for
the notion that perceived values associated with organizational culture influence em-
ployees’ attitudes (Howard 1998). Our finding that attributes of the different cultures
differently affect employees’ job attitudes raises questions regarding value congruence
between existing organizational values and values emphasized through organizational
change initiatives. In particular, the negative effects of perceived market culture on OC
and the nonsignificant effects of perceived adhocracy culture on job attitudes imply that
NPM might not be effective in Korean public organizations or that these values are not
viewed positively by public employees.

Most importantly, study provides additional empirical support for the notion that
perceived organizational culture should be considered as an important influence on job
attitudes, and sheds light on the relationship between perceived organizational culture
and job attitudes in public sector organizations. As noted earlier, organizational culture

Table 6 Summary of hypothesis tests

Hypotheses Results Support

H1a: Adhocracy → JS Not significant No

Adhocracy → OC Not significant

H1b: Clan → JS Positive

Yes

Clan → OC Positive (Directly negative but positive
in total effects)

H1c: Hierarchy → JS Negative Partially

Hierarchy → OC Positive

H1d: Market → JS Not significant Partially

Market → OC Negative

H2: JS mediates the relationship between
perceived organizational culture and OC

Yes

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 169

has not received much attention as a determinant of job attitudes relative to structural
antecedents of job attitudes. In that public sector organizations have been regarded as
different from private sector organizations in terms of job characteristics, employees’
motivation, work environment and so forth, studies examining the influence of perceived
organizational culture on work-related variables in public sector organizations are much
needed. Overall, this study contributes to the organizational behavior literature by
examining the relationship between perceived organizational culture and job attitudes
of public sector employees, an area that has received little attention in previous literature.

Lastly, this study empirically demonstrated that JS precedes OC and plays a
mediating role between perceived organizational culture and OC. As mentioned above,
this is consistent with the majority of studies examining the relationship between JS and
OC, although there is still not full consensus regarding the relationship between the two
job attitudes. In this regard, this study contributes to the literature by providing
additional empirical evidence for the relationship between JS and OC.

Practical Implications Our findings also offer important implications for public
management practitioners. First, the finding that perceived market culture negatively
affect OC implies that the current emphasis on NPM in public sector organizations
might be less effective in the long run than is currently assumed. If NPM conflicts with
shared values of employees and perceived cultures in public organizations, as indicated
in several previous studies (Harrow and Willcocks 1990; Parker and Bradley 2000), the
implementation of NPM might not lead to expected increases in productivity and
efficiency in the public sector.

The finding that perceived values associated with clan culture positively affect both
JS and OC imply that public management practices valuing participation, teamwork,
and sense of family enhance employees’ job attitudes in a more effective and stable
way, especially in comparison with attributes of cultures having an opposite directional
influence on these job attitudes. Interestingly, although perceived values associated
with hierarchy culture negatively influence JS, they have a large positive effect on OC.
Hence, managerial practices associated with values of hierarchy culture, such as order,
formal rules and regulation, still might be effective or necessary in public sector
organizations. For example, one would expect that public employees’ tasks should be
in accordance with the law and regulatory rules. Thus, managerial practices overem-
phasize competition and efficient performance might conflict with cultural values
emphasizing accountability and formal procedures.

Limitations

This study has several certain limitations. First, findings are based on the perceptions of
employees who voluntarily responded to the questionnaire, and may not be represen-
tative of all the employees in the Ministry. In addition, our sample is drawn from one
central public agency in Korea, and so the findings may not be generalizable to private
sector organizations, other Korean central government agencies, government organiza-
tions at the local level, or organizations in other national settings.

Second, the data reflect these employees’ perceptions of attributes of organizational
culture, rather than objective measures of these variables. Third, the model did not
consider subcultures, but rather looked at the Ministry as a whole. Although cultures

170 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

often differ across departments, divisions, or teams, analyses were not conducted for
subunits of the organization. Finally, it should be noted that the data were collected
from the sample during a specific time span, and so the analyses do not reflect
longitudinal changes. All of these limitations suggest that results must be interpreted
with caution.

Areas for Further Research

The theoretical implications and limitations of this study suggest several ideas for
further research. First, the differential directions of effects of perceived organizational
culture on the two job attitudes raise important questions. This finding is counterintu-
itive and in contradiction to the study hypotheses, which were derived from current
theory and empirical research, which suggests that job attitudes will be affected in the
same direction (e.g., Gaertner 1999; Lok and Crawford 2001). Further research is
necessary to examine specific conditions that might lead to such results.

Second, more research comparing private, public or nongovernment (nonprofit)
sector organizations will be needed. Building on findings presented in this study, future
research on whether perceived hierarchical culture influences job attitudes differently
across settings would be particularly valuable.

Third, this study examined organizational culture using individual perceptions of
organizational-level culture. Future studies might examine the relationships between
organizational culture and job attitudes at the subunit level.

Finally, this study examined OC. Employees can, however, be committed differen-
tially to the organization as a whole, their supervisors, coworkers, career, and so on
(Meyer et al. 1993; Reichers 1985). Our finding of a negative direct effect of em-
ployees’ perception of clan culture on their OC might be associated with the specific
focus of employee commitment. Arguably, clan culture, which values warmness and
caring between people, might lead employees to commit more to their coworkers or
team than to the organization as a whole. Future studies considering foci of commit-
ment might provide more tailored explanations.

Concluding Remarks

This study investigated the relationship between perceived organizational culture and
employees’ job attitudes in a Korean central agency in the context of the NPM Reform.
The findings indicate that employees’ perception of attributes of organizational culture
differentially affect employees’ job attitudes. Moreover, the findings provide additional
empirical support for the proposition that JS precedes employees’ OC and plays a
mediating role for JS within a relationship between perceived cultural values and OC.
Overall, this study contributes to public management theory in that the findings support
the impact of perceived organizational culture on employees’ job attitudes in the public
organization context, an area where there has been a relative lack of empirical research.
In addition, our findings suggest a need for managers and those developing organiza-
tional policies for public organizations to look more closely at whether managerial
practices aligned with values associated with NPM fit well into public organizations
where traditional values are still appreciated.

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 171

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Professor Sue R. Faerman for her invaluable advice and
critical comments on an earlier draft and to Dr. Geunpil Ryu for his help on data collection for this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A3A2046562).

References

Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: an empirical
test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46(8), 1007–1027. doi:10.1177/001872679304600806.

Ajzen, I. (2006). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1990.tb00506.x.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (2001). Handbook of industrial, work &

organizational psychology (Vol. 1 & 2). CA: Sage.
Arsenault, P., & Faerman, S. R. (2014). Embracing paradox in management: the value of the competing values

framework. Organization Management Journal, 11(3), 147–158.
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic

examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167–185. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.007.
Boxx, W. R., Odom, R. Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency and their

impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: an empirical examination within the public sector.
Public Personnel Management, 20(2), 195–205. doi:10.1177/009102609102000207.

Braunscheidel, M. J., Suresh, N. C., & Boisnier, A. D. (2010). Investigating the impact of organizational culture
on supply chain integration. Human Resource Management, 49(5), 883–911. doi:10.1002/hrm.20381.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organiza-
tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), 533–546.

Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to effective-
ness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 23–58.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the
competing value framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2007). Competing values leadership: creating
value in organizations. MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Organization Studies, 26(3), 443–464. doi:10.1177/0170840605050875.

Clugston, M. (2000). The mediating effects of multidimensional commitment on job satisfaction and intent to leave.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 477–486. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200006)21:4<477::AID- JOB25>3.0.CO;2-7.

Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their
relationships to turnover intention: does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(5), 585–605.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
doi:10.1007/BF02310555.

Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391–418. doi:10.1177/0013164404266386.

Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collective orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275–295. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275 ::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C.

172 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050875

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099–1379(199705)18:3%3C275::AID–JOB796%3C3.0.CO;2–C

Farh, J. L., Hackett, R., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived
organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the effects of power distance
and Traditionality. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. doi:10.2307/3150980.

Gaertner, S. (1999). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover
models. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 479–493. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00030-3.

Gall, M. (2003). Educational research: an introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values framework: understanding

the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3),
58–68.

Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M. L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: public, non-profit, and
for-profit. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 201–210. doi:10.1177/009102600203100206.

Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and
effectiveness: a study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research,
62(7), 673–679. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.

Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader-member exchange and empowerment: direct
and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20(3), 371–382. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006.

Harrow, J., & Willcocks, L. (1990). Public services management: activities, initiatives and limits to learning.
Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 281–304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00248.

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Angelo, K. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a
meta-analytic investigation of the competing values Framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694. doi:10.1037/a0021987.

Helfrich, C. D., Li, Y. F., Mohr, D. C., Meterko, M., & Sales, A. E. (2007). Assessing an organizational culture
instrument based on the competing values framework: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Implementation Science, 2(1), 13–26. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-13.

Howard, L. W. (1998). Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational cultures.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 231–253.

Huang, T., & Hsiao, W. (2007). The causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(9), 1265–1276. doi:10.1108/eb028886.

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2007). Organizational behavior and management.
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Jackson, T. (2002). The Management of People across cultures: valuing people differently. Human Resource
Management, 41(4), 455–475. doi:10.1002/hrm.10054.

Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance
relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. doi:10.1037
/0033-2909.127.3.376.

Kaplan, D. W. (2008). Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kim, H. (2014). Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational affective commit-

ment, and organizational citizenship behavior: a case of South Korea’s public sector. Public Organization
Review, 14(3), 397–417. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0225-z.

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilford Press.
Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In B.

Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: history, theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job

satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594–613. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006302.
Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,

18(3), 219–236. doi:10.1108/0885862031047313.
Markovits, Y., Davis, A. J., Fay, D., & van Dick, R. (2010). The link between job satisfaction and

organizational commitment: differences between public and private sector employees. International
Public Management Journal, 13(2), 177–196. doi:10.1080/10967491003756682.

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 173

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009102600203100206

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076546

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6486.1990.tb00248

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021987

http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748–5908–2–13

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb028886

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10054

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.127.3.376

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11115–013–0225–z

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0885862031047313

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10967491003756682

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: three perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.

Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application. CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations (Extension

and test of a three-component conceptualization). Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538.

Meyer, J. P., Hecht, T. D., Gill, H., & Toplonytsky, L. (2010). Person–organization (culture) fit and employee
commitment under conditions of organizational change: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76(3), 458–473.

Min, J. (2008). A case study on the reorganization of Korean central government, Lee Administration,
February 2008. Journal of Korean Organizational Studies, 5(2), 267–292.

Mohr, D. C., Young, G. J., & Burgess Jr., J. F. (2012). Employee turnover and operational performance: the
moderating effect of group-oriented organisational culture. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2),
216–233.

Moon, M. J. (2000). Organizational commitment revisited in new public management: motivation, organiza-
tional culture, sector, and managerial level. Public Performance and Management Review, 24(2), 177–
194. doi:10.2307/3381267.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of
commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press.

Mueller, C. W., & Lawler, E. J. (1999). Commitment to nested organizational units: some basic principles and
preliminary findings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(4), 325–346. doi:10.2307/2695832.

Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Yim, F. H. K. (2009). Does the job satisfaction-job performance relationship
vary across cultures? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(5), 761–796.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In N. Brewer
and C. Wilson (eds.). Psychology and Policing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., & Dunn, M. G. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment, satisfaction, and
cohesion. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14(2), 157–169. doi:10.2307/3380963.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the
public sector. Addison-Wesley.

Palthe, J., & Kossek, E. E. (2003). Sub-cultures and employment modes: translating HR strategy into practice.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(3), 287–309. doi:10.1108/09534810310475532.

Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: evidence from six Organisations.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2), 125–141. doi:10.1108/09513550010338773.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and prediction. Orlando:
Harcourt Brace.

Perryer, C., & Jordan, C. (2005). The influence of leader behaviors on organizational commitment: a study in
the Australian public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(5), 379–396. doi:10.1081
/PAD-200055193.

Peters, T., & Waterman, R, H. (1982). In search of excellence, New York: Harper and Row.
Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 157–177. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00050-2.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public

Productivity Review, 5(2), 122–140. doi:10.2307/3380029.
Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. The Academy of

Management Review, 10(3), 465–476.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel

studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472–481. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472.
Robert, C., & Wasti, S. A. (2002). Organizational individualism and collectivism: theoretical development and an

empirical test of a measure. Journal of Management, 28(4), 544–566. doi:10.1177/014920630202800404.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management,

43(4), 395–407. doi:10.1002/hrm.20032.
Schein, E. H. (1981). Does Japanese management style have a message for American managers? Sloan

Management Review, 21(1), 55–68.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119. doi:10.1037/0003-066

X.45.2.109.
Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),

Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park: Sage.

174 Kim J.S., Han S.-H.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053–4822(91)90011–Z

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.78.4.538

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3381267

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2695832

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380963

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810310475532

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513550010338773

http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD–200055193

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001–8791(03)00050–2

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380029

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.93.2.472

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800404

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20032

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003–066X.45.2.109

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siegel, P. A., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A. Y., & Garden, C. (2005). The moderating influence of

procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 13–24. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.13.

Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational
commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(7),
592–599. doi:10.1108/01437730410561477.

Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of
commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 251–270. doi:10.1002/job.192.

Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Liefooghe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal: the psychological
contract as a framework for understanding career management, organizational commitment and work
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 821–838. doi:10.1002/job.341.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x.

Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the
prediction of voluntary turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 621–638. doi:10.2307
/3069407.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Press.
Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1992). The culture of work organizations. NJ: Simon & Schuster.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153–167. doi:10.1177/014920639201800110.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: an examination of the processes underlying

realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 60–67.
Wallace, J. E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 228–255. doi:10.2307/2393637.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: the cultural match. Training and Development Journal,

37(2), 28–36.
Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in

turnover models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(2), 219–231. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.219.

Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2003). Job satisfaction in the public sector. The American Review of Public
Administration, 33(1), 70–90. doi:10.1177/0275074002250254.

Ji Sung Kim is a research professor at the Institute for Governmental Studies of Korea University. She earned
her doctoral degree in public administration at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Public Policy,
University at Albany, State University of New York. Her research interests include organizational culture,
employees’ job attitudes, employees’ work-life balance, gender governance, and qualitative methods in public
administration.

Seung-hyun (Caleb) Han is an assistant professor of Human Resources and Organization Development at the
University of Georgia. Dr. Han received his doctoral degree in Human Resource Development from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests are knowledge sharing process, knowledge
management systems and learning organization.

Civil Servants’ Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 175

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.90.1.13

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410561477

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.192

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.341

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.1993.tb00874.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069407

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800110

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393637

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.71.2.219

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074002250254

Examining…

Abstract
Introduction
Research Context
Organizational Culture and Values
Competing Values Framework (CVF)
Organizational Commitment (OC)
Job Satisfaction (JS)
Relationships among Perception of Organizational Culture and OC, and JS
Methods
Results
Discussion
Limitations
Areas for Further Research
Concluding Remarks
References

Symposium
Introduction

John M. Bryson is the McKnight

Presidential Professor of Planning and

Public Affairs in the Humphrey School of

Public Affairs at the

University of Minnesota

He wrote Strategic Planning for Public

and Nonprofi t Organizations and co-

wrote, with Barbara C. Crosby, Leadership

for the Common Good. He received

the 2011 Dwight Waldo Award from the

American Society for Public Administration

for “outstanding contributions to the pro-

fessional literature of public administration

over an extended scholarly career.”

E-mail: bryson001@umn.edu

Barbara C. Crosby associate professor

the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at

the University of Minnesota, has taught and

written extensively about leadership and

public policy. She is author of Leadership

for Global Citizenship and coauthor,

with John M. Bryson, of Leadership for

the Common Good. As former academic

codirector of the University of Minnesota’s

Center for Integrative Leadership, she

conducted training for senior managers of

nonprofi t, business, and government organi-

zations in the United States and abroad.

E-mail: crosb002@umn.edu

Laura Bloomberg is associate dean in

the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at

the University of Minnesota. Her teaching,

research, and publications focus on U.S.

education policy and administration,

cross-sector leadership, and program

evaluation. Previously, she was an urban

high school principal and executive director

of the University of Minnesota’s Center for

Integrative Leadership. She worked with

former U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton

to launch the global Women in Public

Service Project.

E-mail: bloom004@umn.edu

This article has been updated with minor copy-editing changes after fi rst online publication. 445

Public Administration Review,

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12238.

approach. In this regard, the emerging approach
reemphasizes and brings to the fore value-related
concerns of previous eras that were always present
but not dominant (Denhardt and Denhardt 2011;
Rosenbloom and McCurdy 2006). Th is renewed
attention to a broader array of values, especially to
values associated with democracy, makes it obvious
why questions related to the creation of public value,
public values more generally, and the public sphere
have risen to prominence. Th is article highlights some
of the key value-related issues in the new approach
and proposes an agenda for the future.

First, we outline what we believe are the main con-
tours of the emerging approach. Next, we clarify the
meaning of value, public value, public values, and the
public sphere; discuss how they are operationalized;
and summarize important challenges to the concepts.
We then discuss how public value and public values
are used in practice. Finally, we present an agenda for
research and action to be pursued if the new approach
is to fulfi ll its promise.1

An Emerging View of Public Administration
Public administration thinking and practice have
always responded to new challenges and the short-
comings of what came before (Kaufman 1969; Peters
and Pierre 1998). Table 1, which builds on a similar
table in Denhardt and Denhardt (2011, 28–29),
presents a summary of traditional public administra-
tion, the New Public Management, and the emerg-
ing approach. Th e new approach highlights four
important stances that together represent a response
to current challenges and old shortcomings. Th ese
include an emphasis on public value and public
values, a recognition that government has a special
role as a guarantor of public values, a belief in the
importance of public management broadly conceived
and of service to and for the public, and a heightened
emphasis on citizenship and democratic and col-
laborative governance. Th ese concerns, of course, are
not new to public administration, but their emerging
combination is the latest response to what Dwight

A new public administration movement is emerging to
move beyond traditional public administration and New
Public Management. Th e new movement is a response to
the challenges of a networked, multisector, no-one-wholly-
in-charge world and to the shortcomings of previous
public administration approaches. In the new approach,
values beyond effi ciency and eff ectiveness—and especially
democratic values—are prominent. Government has a
special role to play as a guarantor of public values, but
citizens as well as businesses and nonprofi t organizations
are also important as active public problem solvers. Th e
article highlights value-related issues in the new approach
and presents an agenda for research and action to be
pursued if the new approach is to fulfi ll its promise.

Creating public value is a hot topic for both public administration practitioners and schol-ars (Van der Wal, Nabatchi, and de Graaf
2013; Williams and Shearer 2011). Why is that?
What is going on? We believe the answer lies with the
continuing evolution of public administration think-
ing and practice. Just as New Public Management
supplanted traditional public administration in
the 1980s and 1990s as the dominant view, a new
movement is now under way that is likely to eclipse
it. Th e new approach does not have a consensually
agreed name, but many authors point to the need for
a new approach and to aspects of its emergence in
practice and theory (e.g., Alford and Hughes 2008;
Boyte 2005; Bozeman 2007; Denhardt and Denhardt
2011; Fisher 2014; Kalambokidis 2014; Kettl 2008;
Moore 1995, 2013, 2014; Osborne 2010; Stoker
2006; Talbot 2010). For example, Janet and Robert
Denhardt’s excellent and widely cited book Th e New
Public Service (2011) captures much of the collabora-
tive and democratic spirit, content, and governance
focus of the movement.

While effi ciency was the main concern of traditional
public administration, and effi ciency and eff ectiveness
are the main concerns of New Public Management,
values beyond effi ciency and eff ectiveness are pursued,
debated, challenged, and evaluated in the emerging

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public
Administration and the New Public Management

John M. Bryson
Barbara C. Crosby
Laura Bloomberg

University of Minnesota

446 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

Table 1 Comparing Perspectives: Traditional Public Administration, New Public Management, and the Emerging Approach to Public Administration

Dimension Traditional Public Administration New Public Management
Emerging Approach to Public Administration (e.g.,

Denhardt and Denhardt’s [2011] New Public Service)

Broad Environmental and Intellectual Context

Material and ideo-
logical conditions

Industrialization, urbanization, rise of
modern corporation, specialization,
faith in science, belief in progress,
concern over major market failures,
experience with the Great Depres-
sion and World War II, high trust in
government

Concern with government failures,
distrust of big government,
belief in the effi cacy and
effi ciency of markets and
rationality, devolution and
devolution

Concern with market, government, nonprofi t and civic
failures; concern with so-called wicked problems;
deepening inequality; hollowed or thinned state;
“downsized” citizenship; networked and collaborative
governance; advanced information and communication
technologies

Primary theoretical
and epistemologi-
cal foundations

Political theory, scientifi c management,
naive social science, pragmatism

Economic theory, sophisticated
positivist social science

Democratic theory, public and nonprofi t management
theory, plus diverse approaches to knowing

Prevailing view of
rationality and
model of human
behavior

Synoptic rationality, “administrative
man”

Technical and economic rationality,
“economic man,” self-interested
decision makers

Formal rationality, multiple tests of rationality (political,
administrative, economic, legal, ethical), belief in public
spiritedness beyond narrow self-interest, “reason-
able person” open to infl uence through dialogue and
deliberation

The Public Sphere or Realm

Defi nition of the
common good,
public value, the
public interest

Determined by elected offi cials or
technical experts

Determined by elected offi cials or
by aggregating individual prefer-
ences supported by evidence of
consumer choice

What is public is seen as going far beyond government,
although government has a special role as a guarantor
of public values; common good determined by broadly
inclusive dialogue and deliberation informed by evi-
dence and democratic and constitutional values

Role of politics Elect governors, who determine policy
objectives

Elect governors, who determine
policy objectives; empowered
managers; administrative politics
around the use of specifi c tools

“Public work,” including determining policy objectives via
dialogue and deliberation; democracy as “a way of life”

Role of citizenship Voter, client, constituent Customer Citizens seen as problem-solvers and co-creators actively
engaged in creating what is valued by the public and is
good for the public

Government and Public Administration

Role of government
agencies

Rowing, seen as designing and imple-
menting policies and programs in re-
sponse to politically defi ned objectives

Steering, seen as determining
objectives and catalyzing service
delivery through tool choice and
reliance if possible on markets,
businesses, and nonprofi t
organizations

Government acts as convener, catalyst, collaborator;
sometimes steering, sometimes, rowing, sometimes
partnering, sometimes staying out of the way

Key objectives Politically provided goals; implementation
managed by public servants; monitor-
ing done through bureaucratic and
elected offi cials’ oversight

Politically provided goals;
managers manage inputs and
outputs in a way that ensures
economy and responsiveness to
consumers

Create public value in such a way that what the public
most cares about is addressed effectively and what is
good for the public is put in place

Key values Effi ciency Effi ciency and effectiveness Effi ciency, effectiveness, and the full range of democratic
and constitutional values

Mechanisms for
achieving policy
objectives

Administer programs through central-
ized, hierarchically organized public
agencies or self-regulating professions

Create mechanisms and incentive
structures to achieve policy
objectives especially through use
of markets

Selection from a menu of alternative delivery mechanisms
based on pragmatic criteria; this often means helping
build cross-sector collaborations and engaging citizens
to achieve agreed objectives

Role of public
manager

Ensures that rules and appropriate
procedures are followed; responsive
to elected offi cials, constituents, and
clients; limited discretion allowed to
administrative offi cials

Helps defi ne and meet agreed
upon performance objectives;
responsive to elected offi cials
and customers; wide discretion
allowed

Plays an active role in helping create and guide networks
of deliberation and delivery and help maintain and
enhance the overall effectiveness, accountability, and
capacity of the system; responsive to elected offi cials,
citizens, and an array of other stakeholders; discre-
tion is needed but is constrained by law, democratic
and constitutional values, and a broad approach to
accountability

Approach to
accountability

Hierarchical, in which administrators are
accountable to democratically elected
offi cials

Market driven, in which aggre-
gated self-interests result in out-
comes desired by broad groups
of citizens seen as customers

Multifaceted, as public servants must attend to law, com-
munity values, political norms, professional standards,
and citizen interests

Contribution to the
democratic process

Delivers politically determined objec-
tives and accountability; competition
between elected leaders provides over-
arching accountability; public sector
has a monopoly on public service ethos

Delivers politically determined
objectives; managers determine
the means; skepticism regard-
ing public service ethos; favors
customer service

Delivers dialogue and catalyzes and responds to active
citizenship in pursuit of what the public values and what
is good for the public; no one sector has a monopoly on
public service ethos; maintaining relationships based on
shared public values is essential

Sources: Adapted principally from Denhardt and Denhardt (2011, 28–29), with further adaptations from Stoker (2006, 44); Kelly, Mulgan, and Muers (2002);
and Boyte (2011).

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 447

how to govern, not just manage, in increasingly diverse and com-
plex societies facing increasingly complex problems (Kettl 2002;
Osborne 2010; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). Natural disasters,
failures of large parts of the economy, unevenly eff ective health care
and education systems, a stagnant middle class, deepening inequal-
ity, and bankrupt communities off er recent examples that have
challenged not just governments but also businesses, nonprofi ts,
and civil society generally. In the United States, these challenges are
occurring at a time of historic distrust of a broad range of institu-
tions (Gallup 2014).

The Emerging Approach
Th e responses to these new challenges do not yet constitute a
coherent whole, but the outlines of a new approach are becoming
clear in, for example, Janet and Robert Denhardt’s (2011) widely
cited framework called the New Public Service, as well as in Gerry
Stoker’s (2006) public value management, Barry Bozeman’s (2007)
managing publicness, Stephen Osborne’s new public governance
(2010), and political theorist Harry Boyte and colleagues’ (Boyte
2011) new civic politics. Th ese scholars draw on diff erent theo-
retical and epistemological foundations than traditional public
administration or New Public Management. Citizens, citizenship,
and democracy are central to the new approach, which harks back
to Dwight Waldo’s (1948) abiding interest in a democratic theory
of administration. Th e approach advocates more contingent,
pragmatic kinds of rationality, going beyond the formal rationalities
of Herbert Simon’s (1997) “administrative man” and the “eco-
nomic man” of microeconomics. Citizens are seen as quite capable
of engaging in deliberative problem solving that allows them to
develop a public spiritedness of the type that Tocqueville saw in the
American republic of the 1830s when he talked about the preva-
lence of “self-interest rightly understood” (Tocqueville 1840; see
also Mansbridge 1990).

Scholars arguing for the new approach see public value emerging
from broadly inclusive dialogue and deliberation. Th e conversation
includes community members from multiple sectors because, as
Jørgensen and Bozeman note, “public values and public value are
not the exclusive province of government, nor is government the
only set of institutions having public value obligations, [though
clearly] government has a special role as guarantor of public values”
(2007, 373–74). Th is aspect of the approach has many precursors,
including, for example, the work of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom
(Ostrom 1973; Ostrom and Ostrom 1971), which also provides
important underpinnings for understanding networked and col-
laborative governance (McGinnis and Ostrom 2012; Th omson and
Perry 2006). Th e approach encompasses what Boyte terms “public
work,” meaning “self-organized, sustained eff orts by a mix of people
who solve common problems and create things, material or sym-
bolic, of lasting civic value” (2011, 632–33), while developing civic
learning and capacity as part of the process. Th is work can engage
many diff erent kinds of people, including public-spirited managers
from across sectors and citizens. Citizens thus move beyond their
roles as voters, clients, constituents, customers, or poll responders
to becoming problem solvers, co-creators, and governors actively
engaged in producing what is valued by the public and good for the
public (Briggs 2008). Budd (2014) captures the importance of work
in general for the creation of public value and the special role that
labor unions have often played in its creation.

Waldo (1948) called the periodically changing “material and
ideological background.” Whether the new approach can live up to
its promise—and particularly its democratic promise—is an open
question that we explore later.

Traditional Public Administration
Traditional public administration (Stoker 2006; Waldo 1948)
arose in the United States in the late 1900s and matured by the
mid-twentieth century as a response to a particular set of condi-
tions. Th ese included the challenges of industrialization, urbaniza-
tion, the rise of the modern corporation, faith in science, belief in
progress, and concern over major market failures. Mostly success-
ful experience with government responses to World War I, the
Great Depression, and World War II helped solidify support for
traditional public administration and built strong trust in govern-
ment as an agent for the good of all. In its idealized form, politics
and administration were quite separate (Wilson 1887). Goals were
determined in the fi rst instance by elected offi cials and only second-
arily refi ned by technical experts in response to political direction.
Government agencies were the primary deliverers of public value
through the way they designed and implemented politically defi ned
objectives (Salamon 2002). Effi ciency in government operations
was the preeminent value. Citizens were viewed primarily as voters,
clients, or constituents. Of course, traditional public administration
in practice was always more deeply enmeshed in politics than its
idealized form would suggest (Denhardt and Denhardt 2011, 6–7;
Waldo 1948), and government agencies were themselves prone to
failure (Wolf 1979).

New Public Management
After a long gestation period, the New Public Management (Hood
1991) became the dominant approach to public administration in
the 1980s and 1990s. In the United States, the change was marked
by Osborne and Gaebler’s best-selling book Reinventing Government
(1992) and the Bill Clinton administration’s National Performance
Review (Gore 1993). New Public Management arose out of a con-
cern with government failures, a belief in the effi cacy and effi ciency
of markets, a belief in economic rationality, and a push away from
large, centralized government agencies toward devolution and
privatization.

In New Public Management, public managers are urged to “steer,
not row.” Th ey steer by determining objectives, or what should be
done, and by catalyzing service delivery, or how it should be done
(rowing), through their choice of a particular “tool” or combination
of tools (e.g., markets, regulation, taxes, subsidies, insurance, etc.)
for achieving the objectives (Salamon 2002). Markets and competi-
tion—often among actors from diff erent sectors—are the preferred
way of delivering government services in the most effi cient and
eff ective way to recipients seen as “customers,” not citizens. Public
managers should be empowered and freed from constrictions so that
they can be “entrepreneurial” and “manage for results.” In practice,
of course, managers often face the worst of circumstances in which
they are accountable for results but not allowed to manage for
results (Moynihan 2006).

While the challenges that prompted traditional public adminis-
tration and New Public Management have not disappeared, new
material conditions and challenges have emerged. Th ey center on

448 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

Th e emerging approach is partly descriptive of current and emerging
practices, partly normative in its prescriptions regarding the role of
government and public managers, and partly hopeful as a response
to the challenges posed by a “changing material and ideologi-
cal background.” In contrast to traditional public administration
and New Public Management, however, the emerging approach
often looks ambiguous, unevenly grounded theoretically, relatively
untested, and lacking in clear guidance for practice. Yet what else
can one expect in a shared-power, multisector, no-one-wholly-in-
charge world? (Cleveland 2002; Crosby and Bryson 2005). Old
approaches have their own problems, and the new approach is still
emerging. One thing is clear, however, and that is the fundamental
importance in the emerging approach of understanding what is
meant by public value, public values, and the public sphere. Progress
must be made on clarifying, measuring, and assessing these concepts
if the new approach is gain added traction.

Value, Public Value, Public Values, and the Public Sphere
Th e dictionary defi nition of value as “relative worth, utility, or
importance” of something (Merriam-Webster, accessed online
April 1, 2014) leaves open a number of questions that have troubled
philosophers for centuries and reappear in the current debate over
public values, public value, and the public sphere. Th ese questions
concern at least the following: (1) whether the objects of value
are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world;
(2) whether value is intrinsic, extrinsic, or relational; (3) whether
something is valuable for its own sake or as a means to something
else; (4) whether there are hierarchies of values; (5) who does the
valuing; (6) how the valuing is done; and (7) against what criteria
the object of value is measured. We return to these questions as we
discuss four major contributions to the public value literature and in
our conclusions.

Th e public value literature distinguishes among (1) public values,
which are many (e.g., Andersen et al. 2012; Bozeman 2002, 2007;
Jørgenson and Bozeman 2007; Meynhardt 2009; Van Wart 1998);
(2) creating public value, defi ned as producing what is either valued
by the public, is good for the public, including adding to the public
sphere, or both, as assessed against various public value criteria
(Alford 2008; Alford and O’Flynn 2009; Benington and Moore
2011; Stoker 2006); and (3) the public sphere or public realm,
within which public values and value are developed and played out
(Benington 2011).

Barry Bozeman on Public Values
Bozeman, a leading voice in the public value literature, focuses on
the policy or societal level. He writes, “A society’s public values are
those providing normative consensus about: (1) the rights, ben-
efi ts, and prerogatives to which citizens should (and should not) be
entitled; (2) the obligations of citizens to society, the state, and one
another; and (3) the principles on which governments and policies
should be based” (2007, 17). Although public values in a democ-
racy are typically contested, a relative consensus is discernible from
constitutions, legislative mandates, policies, literature reviews,
opinion polls, and other formal and informal sources (Jørgensen
and Bozeman 2007).

What Bozeman terms public value failure occurs when neither the
market nor the public sector provides goods and services required

In the new approach, government agencies can be conveners,
catalysts, and collaborators—sometimes steering, sometimes row-
ing, sometimes partnering, and sometimes staying out of the way.
In addition, the way in which government’s key objectives are
set changes. In traditional public administration, elected offi cials
set goals, and implementation is up to public servants, overseen
by elected offi cials’ and senior administrators. In New Public
Management, elected offi cials still set goals. Managers then manage
inputs and outputs in a way that ensures economy and responsive-
ness to customers. In contrast, in the new approach, both elected
offi cials and public managers are charged with creating public value
so that what the public cares about most is addressed eff ectively and
what is good for the public is pursued. Th is change for public man-
agers raises obvious questions of democratic accountability, an issue
to which we will turn later. On the other hand, the change is essen-
tially a recognition that managers have always played an important
role in goal setting because of the advice they give to elected offi cials
and the need to act in the face of often ambiguous policy direction.

As noted, in the emerging approach, the full range of democratic
and constitutional values are relevant. Policy makers and public
managers are also encouraged to consider the full array of alternative
delivery mechanisms and choose among them based on pragmatic
criteria. Th is often means helping build cross-sector collaborations
and engaging citizens to achieve mutually agreed objectives (Agranoff
2006; Fung 2006; McGuire 2006). Public managers’ role thus goes
well beyond that in traditional public administration or New Public
Management; they are presumed able to help create and guide net-
works of deliberation and delivery and help maintain and enhance
the overall eff ectiveness, capacity, and accountability of the system.

Th e nature of discretion also changes. In traditional public admin-
istration, public managers have limited discretion; New Public
Management encourages wide discretion in meeting entrepreneurial
and performance targets. In the emerging approach, discretion is
needed, but it is constrained by law, democratic and constitutional
values, and a broad approach to accountability. Accountability
becomes multifaceted and not just hierarchical (as in traditional
public administration) or more market driven (as in New Public
Management), as public servants must attend to law, community
values, political norms, professional standards, and citizen interests
(Dubnick and Frederickson 2010; Mulgan 2000; Romzek, LeRoux,
and Blackmar 2012). In the emerging multisector collaborative
environment, no one sector has a monopoly on public service ethos,
although government plays a special role; in addition, there is less
skepticism about government and a less strong preference for mar-
kets and customer service.

Finally, in this emerging approach, public administration’s contribu-
tion to the democratic process is also diff erent. In both traditional
public administration and New Public Management, managers are
not very directly involved in the democratic process, viewed mainly
as elections and legislative deliberation. In contrast, in the emerging
approach, government delivers dialogue and catalyzes and responds
to active citizenship in pursuit of what the public values and what is
good for the public. Th e extent to which it is possible for dialogue
and deliberation to do so in practice remains unclear, however, in
systems that favor elites and are stacked against ordinary citizens
(Dahl and Soss 2014).

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 449

arbiter of public value when collectively owned assets of government
are being deployed. Second, collectively owned assets include not
only government money but also state authority. Th ird, assessing
the value of government production relies on an aggregation of costs
and benefi ts broadly conceived, as well as on collective determina-
tions concerning the welfare of others, duties to others, and concep-
tions of a good and just society. Moore (2013, forthcoming) uses
these philosophical premises to develop a public value account. On
the benefi t side is the achievement of collectively valued outcomes,
while on the cost side are the costs of using public authority and
collectively owned assets.

Moore argues that public managers should use the strategic triangle
(1995, 22–23). Strategy must be (1) aimed at achieving something
that is substantively valuable (i.e., must constitute public value),
(2) legitimate and politically sustainable, and (3) operationally and
administratively feasible (see also Alford and O’Flynn 2009). Moore
“equates managerial success in the public sector with initiating and
reshaping public sector enterprises in ways that increase their value
to the public in both the short and the long run” (1995, 10), which
requires a “restless, value-seeking imagination” (Benington and
Moore 2011, 3).

Moore is speaking primarily to current and prospective public man-
agers in a democratic society and secondarily to their elected leaders.
Like Bozeman, an implication of Moore’s work is the need for a
healthy democracy with supporting institutions and the processes
necessary to forge agreement on and achieve public values in practice.

For Moore, like Bozeman, public value generally refers to objective
states of the world that can be measured. Also like Bozeman, Moore
sees public value as extrinsic and also intrinsic to the functioning
of an eff ective democratic polity. Again, like Bozeman, something
being evaluated may be deemed to hold inherent value or may
be seen as a means to something else. Unlike Bozeman, Moore
does assume a hierarchy of values in which public organizational
eff ectiveness, effi ciency, accountability, justness, and fairness in the
context of democratic governance are prime values. For Moore,
ultimately, elected offi cials and the citizenry do the valuing, but
public managers also play an important role. Th e valuing can be
shown through the public value account.

Rhodes and Wanna in particular have criticized Moore and his
supporters. Not clear, they say, is whether their approach is “a
paradigm, a concept, a model, a heuristic device, or even a story . . .
[As a result,] it is all things to all people” (2007, 408). Th ey believe
Moore downplays the importance of politics and elected offi cials,
overly emphasizes the role of public managers, and trusts too much
in public organizations, private sector experience, and the virtues of
public servants (409–12).

Alford (2008; see also Alford and O’Flynn 2009) mounts a spir-
ited defense of Moore and off ers refutations of each of Rhodes and
Wanna’s points. He emphasizes Moore’s strategic triangle, which sees
the authorizing environment as placing “a legitimate limit on the
public manager’s autonomy to shape what is meant by public value”
(Alford 2008, 177). Alford also believes Rhodes and Wanna operate
out of an “old” public administration paradigm that draws a sharp
distinction between politics and administration and thus ignore the

to achieve public values, which are operationalized in terms of a set
of eight criteria, for example, political processes and social cohe-
sion should be suffi cient to ensure eff ective communication and
processing of public values, and suffi cient transparency exists to
permit citizens to make informed judgments (Bozeman 2002, 2007;
see also Kalambokidis 2014). Public value creation is the extent to
which public values criteria are met, where these are some combi-
nation of input, process, output, and outcome measures. Public
values for Bozeman thus are measureable, although clearly there
can be disagreements about how the values are to be conceptual-
ized and measured. One implication is that analysts, citizens, and
policy makers should focus on what public values are and on ways
in which institutions and processes are necessary to forge agreement
on and to achieve public values in practice (Davis and West 2009;
Jacobs 2014; Kalambokidis 2014; Moulton 2009).

Note that Bozeman’s approach is both positive, when he asks what
the normative consensus on values is, and normative, when he
argues that public values failures should be corrected. Note, too,
that Bozeman (2007) is silent on the role of the nonprofi t sector
and, to a lesser extent, on the public sphere more generally; on the
rights, responsibilities, or weights to be given to noncitizens; and
on the role and importance of power in contests over public values.
Regarding the eff ects of political power, Jacobs (2014) believes that
in the U.S. context, Bozeman severely underestimates the extent
of dissensus, the disproportionate infl uence of affl uent citizens and
organized interests, and the extent to which governing structures
favor inaction and drift.

Mark Moore on Creating Public Value
Whereas Bozeman focuses on the policy or societal level, Mark Moore
(1995, 52–55), another important voice in the literature, focuses on
public managers. He, too, is concerned about devaluing of govern-
ment and public managers in an era of economic individualism and
market ascendency, and he initially conceived of public value as the
public management equivalent of shareholder value. He seeks both a
persuasive rhetoric and an approach to discerning, championing, and
achieving public value—or what he calls creating public value. Public
value primarily results from government performance, so his view of
public value creation in this early book is narrower than that in much
of the later literature.

Moore believes that citizens want from their governments some
combination of the following that together encompass public
value: (1) high-performing, service-oriented public bureaucracies,
(2) public organizations that are effi cient and eff ective in achieving
desired social outcomes, and (3) public organizations that operate
justly and fairly and lead to just and fair conditions in the society
at large. While Moore’s defi nition of public value is vaguer than
Bozeman’s, it highlights reasonably specifi c public values: effi ciency,
eff ectiveness, socially and politically sanctioned desired outcomes,
procedural justice, and substantive justice. Like Bozeman’s, Moore’s
defi nition of public value can encompass input, process, output, and
outcome measures.

Moore (2014) develops the philosophical foundations of his
approach to public value as a prelude to establishing what he calls
“public value accounting.” He makes three assertions: First, a public
collectively defi ned through democratic processes is the appropriate

450 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

in individuals, constituted by subjective evaluations against basic
needs, activated by and realized in emotional-motivational states,
and produced and reproduced in experience-intense practices.

In contrast to Bozeman and Moore’s approaches, Meyhnardt’s is
nonprescriptive; it is far more psychologically based; and it empha-
sizes more the interpenetration of public and private spheres.
Unlike the other two authors, he pays little attention to the
institutions and supra-individual processes involved in public value
creation. However, like Bozeman and Moore, Meynhardt also sees
public value as measurable, in his case against the dimensions he
outlines.

John Benington on the Public Sphere
Beyond public values and creating public value, there is the public
sphere. John Benington sees the public sphere as “a democratic
space” that includes the “web of values, places, organizations, rules,
knowledge, and other cultural resources held in common by people
through their everyday commitments and behaviors, and held in
trust by government and public institutions” (2011, 31). It is “what
provides a society with some sense of belonging, meaning, purpose
and continuity, and which enables people to thrive and strive amid
uncertainty” (43). Like Dewey (1927), Benington believes that the
public is not given but must be continuously constructed. Public
value is necessarily contested, and it is often established through a
continuous process of dialogue. For Benington, the public sphere
is thus the space—psychological, social, political, institutional, and
physical—within which public values and public value are held, cre-
ated, or diminished. Public value includes what adds to the public
sphere. While Benington himself is committed to democracy, note
that his extended defi nition of the public sphere can apply to other
forms of government.

Operationally, for both practitioners and scholars, determining who
and what the “public” is can be problematic (Frederickson 1991).
Nonetheless, Meynhardt sees the “public” is an “indispensable
operational fi ction necessary for action and orientation in a complex
environment” (2009, 205). In other words, as complexity increases
the more “the public” becomes a social construct “necessary for act-
ing, but hard to pin down” (204).

In practical terms, the public may already be known, may need
to make itself known, or may need to be created. For example,
Moore’s normative approach requires public managers to look to
their “authorizing environments” for direction, although they may
conclude that the public can be best served by working to change
aspects of the authorizing environment. Moore also asserts that
elected offi cials and the citizens (often through elections) are the
arbiters of public value (1995, 38), even when political decision
making is deeply problematic on moral grounds. In democratic
societies, citizens and managers can challenge these questionable
decisions, but not ignore them (Moore 1995, 54–55). For Dewey
(1927), a public is “created” when citizens experience the nega-
tive consequences of situations beyond their control (resulting, for
example, from market or governmental activities). In other circum-
stances, public administrators may need to “call a public into being”
(Moore 2014), for example, when designing and managing a public
participation process (Cooper, Bryer, and Meek 2006; Fung 2006;
Nabatchi 2012).

fact that political appointees and civil servants often have consider-
able leeway to infl uence policy and decisions.

Dahl and Soss (2014) also level sharp criticism at Moore’s concep-
tion of creating public value. In their view, by posing public value
as an analogue to shareholder value, seeing democratic engage-
ment in primarily instrumental terms, and viewing public value as
something that is produced, Moore and his followers actually mimic
the very neoliberal rationality they seek to resist and run the risk of
furthering neoliberalism’s de-democratizing and market-enhancing
consequences. Public managers might unwittingly be agents of
“downsizing democracy” (Crenson and Ginsberg 2002). Th e cau-
tions that Dahl and Soss raise are serious and should be addressed
by those seeking to advance the public value literature.

In addition, Jacobs (2014) believes that Moore’s hopeful view of
public management can be Pollyannaish, at least in the United
States, given sharply divided public opinion on many issues,
intensely partisan politics, the power of organized interests, and
the many veto points built into governance arrangements. Clearly,
public managers are constrained in a democratic society—and
rightly so—but there are also many examples of enterprising, public
value–producing activities that demonstrate that public managers
can, in fact, be active agents in creating public value. Th e public
value literature thus will need to explore much further the concep-
tual, political, organizational, managerial, and other limits on public
managers seeking to create public value in particular circumstances.

Timo Meynhardt on Public Value
Timo Meynhardt, in an important but far less well-known
approach, believes that public value is constructed out of “values
characterizing the relationship between an individual and ‘society,’
defi ning the quality of the relationship” (2009, 206). Th e relation-
ship’s quality is assessed subjectively by individuals, but when there
is intersubjective weight attached to these assessments, they become
objective and might reach Bozeman’s requirement of a reasonable
normative consensus. Meynhardt believes that public value is for
the public when it concerns “evaluations about how basic needs of
the individuals, groups, and the society as a whole are infl uenced in
relationships involving the public” (212). Public value is also about
value from the public, when it is “drawn from the experience of the
public.” Public value for Meynhardt, too, can refer to input, process,
output, and outcome measures.

Meynhardt posits four basic dimensions (or content categories) of
public value closely connected to a widely cited psychological theory
of basic needs (Epstein 1989, 1993, 2003) and related to categories
in traditional welfare economics. Th e categories are moral-ethical,
political-social, utilitarian-instrumental, and hedonistic-aesthetical.
Th e “value” that an individual attaches to an experience is based on
how well the experience satisfi es his or her basic needs as assessed
against these dimensions. Note that the assessment is a subjec-
tive, emotional-motivational, and valenced reaction to an experi-
ence of some sort involving the “public,” such as an encounter
with a government program, an election, or visit to a public space.
Intersubjectively equivalent assessments are a broad measure of the
extent to which public value has been created or diminished. To
summarize, Meynhardt (2009, 212) sees public value creation as
situated in relationships between the individual and society, founded

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 451

identifi cation with a republican or democratic government narrows
the defi nition, while the common foundations of public life are
more closely related to the idea of the public sphere.

How the Ideas of Creating Public Value and Policy-Level
and Societal Public Values Are Used in Practice and
Research
Th e diff erent strands in the public value literature clearly can be
linked. Specifi cally, Moore’s managerially focused idea of creating
public value involves producing what the public values or is good
for the public, the merits of which can be assessed against a set of
more specifi c public values. Th ese can include Bozeman’s and others’
societal or policy-focused public value criteria, Meynhardt’s psycho-
logically focused criteria, Benington’s idea of enhancing the public
sphere, and other important values in the public administration
fi eld and literature. All may or should be considered when assessing
value creation in specifi c instances.

Uses of the Creating Public Value Idea in Practice and Research
Th e idea of creating public value has been used as a paradigm, rhet-
oric, narrative, and kind of performance (Alford and O’Flynn 2009,
178–85). Stoker (2006) proposes “public value management” as a
new paradigm that is better suited to networked governance than
traditional public administration or the New Public Management.
He is thus moving beyond Moore’s primary focus on public manag-
ers at the top of a public bureaucracy delivering services or obliga-
tions to a focus on networked interorganizational and cross-sector
relations and governance.

Stoker makes the case that traditional public administration and
New Public Management are not up to the job of managing in a
networked public environment, but he only vaguely considers how
leaders and managers in specifi c instances would achieve effi ciency,
accountability, and equity, along with broader democratic values
(O’Flynn 2007; Williams and Shearer 2011). Nor does he explain
how leaders and managers should cope with a democracy having
problems with low voter turnout, divided government, competing
organized interests, and competing conceptions of what public value
might be in any situation (Davis and West 2009; Jacobs 2014).

Critics of public value argue that it has been used as a rhetorical
strategy to protect and advance the interests of bureaucrats and
their organizations (Roberts 1995). Th e criticism unquestion-
ably has merit in particular cases. As noted earlier, Dahl and Soss
(2014) highlight the potential of public value rhetoric to under-
mine democratic processes. Smith, however, believes that a “focus
on public value enables one to bring together debates about values,
institutions, systems, processes and people. It also enables one to
link insights from diff erent analytical perspectives, including public
policy, policy analysis, management, economics, and political
science” (2004, 68–69). Similarly, Fisher (2014) off ers a narrative
that contrasts an oppositional approach to public decision making
( public/private, black/white, right/wrong, mine/yours) with an
“opposable” or integrative approach wherein public managers can
link seemingly unrelated, or contradictory, and sometimes paradoxi-
cal constructs to achieve a higher level of public value across sectors.
Th e stories that managers create thus can be self-serving rhetoric
but also a public-regarding story about what should be, or has been,
created.

Public values scholars look to a variety of sources for evidence
of what the “public” is, wants, or is good for it. Sources include,
for example, literature reviews, legislation, rules and regulations,
and opinion polls (Bozeman 2007; Jacobs 2014; Jørgensen and
Bozeman 2007). Meynhardt (2009, forthcoming), as noted, relies
on psychological theory to derive the dimensions against which
public values can be assessed; he has developed and published
results from the use of psychological questionnaires based on this
work. Moulton (2009) looks to “public values institutions,” which
can be of three types, with the three types presumed to diff eren-
tially aff ect how public values are realized in practice. Regulatory
institutions are legally sanctioned and can establish rules, surveil-
lance mechanisms, and incentives to infl uence behavior. Normative-
associative institutions help create expectations or norms that
infl uence social life through prescriptive, evaluative, or obligatory
guidance. Finally, cultural cognitive institutions help create shared
conceptions of the nature of social reality and the frames used to
create meaning. Th e three kinds of institutions are analytic con-
structs and can and do overlap in practice. Andersen et al. (2012)
look to archetypal forms of governance to derive the content of
public values; the forms are hierarchy, clans or professions, net-
works, and markets.

How Public Value Relates to Other Concepts
Part of public value’s importance is that it encompasses and goes
beyond several other venerable concepts that highlight the proper
ends and means of government and broader public action. Among
these are the public interest, the common good, public goods, and
commonwealth. Public interest originally was associated with the
state, not with the public sphere more generally (Gunn 1969), and
thus it typically refers to the reasons for, or consequences of, govern-
ment action (Alexander 2002, 226–27). Beyond that, attempts to
operationalize the public interest have proved diffi cult (Mitnick
1976; Sorauf 1957), although not necessarily in the case of apply-
ing relatively clear public laws and regulations to specifi c decisions
(Alexander 2002). Vagueness and diffi culties of operationalization
also plague related terms such as the common good.

Public goods refers to production of nonrival, nonexcludable goods
and services. Public value diff ers in three ways: First, it includes
remedies to market failures beyond inadequate provision of public
goods, along with the institutional arrangements that make the rem-
edies possible. Th is fi ts clearly with Bozeman’s (2007) view. Public
goods are outputs and public value includes the outcomes made
possible by public goods. Th is fi ts well with Moore’s (1995) view.
Finally, public value has value for the valuer, which accords well
with Meynhardt’s (2009) approach.

Probably commonwealth comes closest to capturing the meaning of
public value, as the term originally meant “common well-being.” In
the United States from the colonial era through the World War II
era, as Boyte (1989) points out, commonwealth meant two things.
First, it meant a republican or democratic government of equals
concerned with the general welfare and an active citizenry through-
out the year. Second, the term “brought to mind the touchstone,
or common foundations, of public life—the basic resources and
public goods of a community over which citizens assumed respon-
sibility and authority” (Boyte 1989, 4–5). Th us, while similar to
public value in meaning, commonwealth is not the same. Th e

452 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

and market failures (Welch, Rimes, and Bozeman, forthcoming).
Th e approach has been used primarily in the science and technol-
ogy fi eld (e.g., Bozeman and Sarewitz 2011) but also increasingly in
other fi elds (Bozeman and Moulton 2011, i367).

Meynhardt (forthcoming) has developed a public value assessment
instrument called the public value scorecard (not to be confused
with Moore’s [2013, forthcoming] public value scorecard). Th e
scorecard is an aggregated summary based on individuals’ rankings
of the value of something related to the public along the dimensions
mentioned earlier—moral-ethical, hedonistic-aesthetical, utilitarian-
instrumental, and political-social—as well as a fi fth dimension
related to fi nancial performance (Meynhardt, forthcoming). Th e
scorecard has been used in a variety of situations for both formative
and summative purposes.

Andersen et al. (2012) have developed a third instrument for assess-
ing public values that relies not on public value criteria or psycho-
logical assessments but instead on what they call “organizational
design principles” derived from four archetypal modes of governance
(hierarchy, clan, network, and market) (717). For each of the four
they articulated the role of public organizations, role of citizens,
organizational context, control forms, and central values. From these
values, they developed an instrument that they tested on Danish
public managers by asking them to what extent the values applied
to their organizations. After a variety of analyses, seven dimensions
of public value emerged: the public at large, rule abidance, budget
keeping, professionalism, balancing interests, effi cient supply, and
user focus. Th eir work highlights tensions among the values and the
complexity of public managers’ values environments (723–24).

Conclusions
Scholars and public professionals are making important theoretical,
practical, and operational strides in developing a new approach to
public administration as an alternative to approaches that preceded
it. Th ey need to do more, however, before the new approach is
widely understood, appreciated, and used to advance important
public values underplayed by traditional public administration
and New Public Management. In this fi nal section, we off er some
tentative conclusions about where things stand and then outline an
agenda for research and practice.

Where Things Stand
While there clearly is an emerging new approach to public admin-
istration, it does not have a consensually agreed name. Among the
various possibilities, however, the Denhardts’ (2011) label “New
Public Service” certainly appears to be the leading contender based
on citations. Whatever the name, attention to issues of public value,
public values, and the public sphere are central to the new approach.

Th e concept of creating public value is popular within both aca-
demic and practice settings (Williams and Shearer 2011). Even crit-
ics note the broad interest in the idea among practitioners (Rhodes
and Wanna 2007). Similarly, Van der Wal, Nabatchi, and de Graaf
(2013) assert that the study of public values is gaining in impor-
tance in public administration and may well be one of the fi eld’s
most important current themes. Finally, for several decades, scholars
and political commentators have devoted increased attention to
the public sphere, including debates about the limits and role of

Finally, as performance, public value can serve as a performance
measurement and management framework. A key advantage of the
public value idea is that there is no single bottom line (Kalambokidis
2014). Moore (2013, 2014, forthcoming), for example, proposes
that managers look at costs and benefi ts as well as at less tangible
aspects when they assess public value creation. Bozeman (2002,
2007) and Talbot (2010) argue for using a variety of public value
criteria to discern how much public value has been created or dimin-
ished. A focus on public value also stimulates attention to the long-
term viability and reliability of public investments (Fisher 2014).

A number of governments have made explicit or implicit use of the
public value framework. Kernaghan (2003), for example, exam-
ines the values statements of four Westminster-style governments;
each contains a range of values beyond effi ciency. Th e “joined-up
government,” “whole-of-government,” and collaborative governance
initiatives that developed in many countries in response to the frag-
mentation caused by New Public Management were about coordi-
nation and also about recovery and pursuit of public values beyond
narrowly defi ned results and effi ciency (Christensen and Lægreid
2007). Unfortunately, some of these eff orts have used excessively
narrow interpretations of public value. For example, the British
government under Tony Blair made explicit use of public value as a
way of thinking about performance, but it operationalized Moore’s
strategic triangle by focusing on services (for operational capabil-
ity), outcomes (for public value), and trust and legitimacy (for
the authorizing environment) (Kelly, Mulgan, and Muers 2002).
Accenture consultants Cole and Parston (2006) further dimin-
ish the meaning of public value. Th eir approach just repackages
existing approaches to performance measurement and management
under a diff erent label (Alford and O’Flynn 2009, 185). Dahl and
Soss’s (2014) cautions about the ease with which the public value
approach can be hijacked for purposes not intended by its principal
authors are on clear display.

Th e various approaches to creating public value can be used posi-
tively or normatively—and have been. Williams and Shearer observe
that “the most striking feature is the relative absence of empirical
investigation of either the normative propositions of public value or
its effi cacy as a framework for understanding public management”
(2011, 1374). Th ey do note, however, some exemplary studies. For
example, O’Toole, Meier, and Nicholson-Crotty (2005) found in a
large-N study of Texas school superintendents that the superintend-
ents saw the points of Moore’s triangle as constitutive of their roles.
And Meynhardt and Metelmann (2009), in a study of the German
Federal Labor Agency, also found evidence that middle managers
think in much the same way that Moore’s public value entrepre-
neurs would.

Uses of Policy-Level and Societal Public Values in Practice
and Research
Policy-level and broader public values have also been used in a
variety of ways. For example, public values feature prominently in
the approach that Bozeman and his coauthors have developed called
“public value mapping.” Th e approach incorporates a broad range
of value considerations into policy decision-making processes by
helping (1) identify public values, (2) assess whether public value
failures have occurred, (3) map relationships among values, and
(4) graphically represent relationships between public value failures

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 453

Th e public value literature does provide a broader sense of public
values than typically found in traditional public administration
and New Public Management. As the emerging approach to public
administration unfolds, the public value literature should be explic-
itly incorporated, as the issues it addresses are so fundamental. For
example, too many performance measurement and management
regimes and models focus principally on effi ciency and eff ectiveness
directly related to the mission (Moynihan et al. 2011; Radin 2006,
2012; Talbot 2010) and disregard what Rosenbloom (2007) terms
“non-mission-based values,” such as equity, due process, freedom
of information, and citizenship development. As a result, too many
performance measurement and management schemes may actually
weaken public value creation (Kroll and Moynihan, forthcoming).
Practitioners thus should work to ensure that performance measure-
ment and management approaches do include non-mission-based
values and, at the very least, do not diminish democratic engage-
ment and citizenship behavior. Rosenbloom’s (2007) contribution
has been noted. Moore (2013, forthcoming) has also made a start
on some of these concerns with his proposed public value account,
as does Meynhardt (forthcoming) with his very diff erent public
value account. Bozeman and his colleagues’ public value mapping
model also makes a contribution. Similarly, public participation
processes can be designed to enhance democratic behavior and
citizenship (Bryson et al. 2013; Nabatchi 2012). Finally, policy
analysis as well should include a broad array of values beyond its
traditional focus on effi ciency, eff ectiveness, and sometimes equity
(Radin 2012).

Practitioners and scholars also should follow Australia’s lead, for
example, and draw attention to the expected and actual public value
created by policies, programs, projects, and other eff orts (Kernaghan
2003). As Jacobs (2014) demonstrates in the U.S. context, the
public is “pragmatically liberal”—that is, the public is quite willing
to support particular public undertakings when the value is clear
and the cost is reasonable. Moore’s public value account off ers a way
of making the case in specifi c circumstances. Kalambokidis (2014)
provides practical advice on some of the ways in which this public
value–clarifying work can be done in relation to fi scal and spending
policy.

Given the complex networked and collaborative arrangements prac-
titioners now often fi nd themselves in, they have a heightened need
to cultivate what Moore calls a “restless, value-seeking imagination”
in a democratic context. Public aff airs scholars and educators should
help them in this eff ort. Th at imagination should also incorpo-
rate attention to government’s special role in assuring concern for
important values and standing fi rm against eff orts to diminish them
(Dahl and Soss 2014). Again, the need for imagination is not new
to public administration, where creativity, innovation, and strate-
gic thinking and acting have always found a place (Bryson 2011;
Hartley, forthcoming; Osborne and Brown 2013). Such imagination
often involves bridging the politics–administration divide (Appleby
1945; Gulick 1933), but also knowing when to defer to elected
offi cials (Alford, Hartley, and Hughes, forthcoming). In all of these
cases, public administrators have a special obligation to turn their
imaginations to enhancing democratic governance and citizenship.
As noted, policy analysis also can help foster imaginative responses
and attention to the array of public values (Radin 2012). Clearly,
however, the public value literature should explore much further the

government, the why and how of public engagement and active
citizenship, and the need for a strengthened democracy.

Th is growing interest is partly attributable to the importance,
urgency, scope, and scale of public problems facing the world; the
pragmatic recognition that governments alone cannot eff ectively
address many of these problems; and a concern that public values
have been and will be lost as a result of a powerful antigovernment
rhetoric and a host of market-based and performance-based reforms.
Following Dewey, the public value literature and the emerging
approach to public administration represent the products of a prac-
titioner and scholarly “public called into being” over these concerns.

In the emerging approach, government clearly has a special role to
play as a creator of public value and a guarantor of public values
and the public sphere, but in a market-based democracy, govern-
ment is not the owner of all the processes and institutions having
public value potential or obligations (Peters and Pierre 1998). Th e
literatures on cross-sector collaboration, integrative leadership,
and networked governance are all responses to the new context, in
which public managers frequently must collaborate with nonprofi ts,
businesses, the media, and citizens to accomplish public purposes. A
major contribution of the public value literature is the way it draws
attention to questions about (1) the public purposes that are or
should be served by organizations in all sectors, by intra- and cross-
sector collaborations, by more general governance arrangements,
and by public leadership broadly defi ned, and (2) how public man-
agers and leaders do and should accomplish these purposes. Th ese
are important normative and research-related questions needing to
be pursued in the new context.

Of course, the concern with purposes and values is hardly new to
public administration; what is diff erent are two diff erent parts of the
context. Th e fi rst is that traditional public administration and New
Public Management—while they both have strengths—are not up
to the tasks of networked governance, leadership, and management
when a variety of public values should be served, including, but
hardly limited to, effi ciency, eff ectiveness, and equity. Th e second
is the view that terms such as the public interest and commonwealth
are too narrow, other related terms such as the common good are
too vague, and the language of public value provides a helpful way
forward, as Jacobs (2014) suggests.

A Research and Practice Agenda
Right now, the new approach is enmeshed in often vague defi ni-
tions, conceptualizations, and measurements of public value and the
public sphere. While public administration scholars and practition-
ers may ultimately agree on these public value-related matters, they
are unlikely to reach full consensus (Davis and West 2009). Th at
is not necessarily a bad thing. In order to make progress, however,
scholars should address the challenges to current formulations, in
part through further conceptual refi nement, the development of
suitable typologies and measures, and rigorous empirical testing.
Research should attend to both subjectively held public values and
more objective states of the world; whether a specifi c public value
is intrinsic, extrinsic, or relational; whether something is a prime or
instrumental public value; whether there are hierarchies of public
values; who does the valuing; how the valuing is done; and against
what criteria the object of value is measured.

454 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

Benington, John. 2011. From Private Choice to Public Value? In Public Value: Th eory
and Practice, edited by John Benington and Mark H. Moore, 31–51. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Benington, John, and Mark H. Moore. 2011. Public Value in Complex and
Changing Times. In Public Value: Th eory and Practice, edited by John Benington
and Mark H. Moore, 1–30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boyte, Harry C. 1989. CommonWealth: A Return to Citizen Politics. New York:
Free Press.

———. 2005. Reframing Democracy: Governance, Civic Agency, and Politics.
Public Administration Review 65(5): 536–46.

———. 2011. Constructive Politics as Public Work: Organizing the Literature.
Political Th eory 39(5): 630–60.

Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public-Value Failure: When Effi cient Markets May Not Do.
Public Administration Review 62(2): 145–61.

———. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic
Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bozeman, Barry, and Stephanie Moulton. 2011. Integrative Publicness: A Framework
for Public Management Strategy and Performance. Supplement 3, Journal of
Public Administration Research and Th eory 21: i363–80.

Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2011. Public Value Mapping and Science
Policy Evaluation. Minerva 49(1): 1–23.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2008. Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in
Communities across the Globe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bryson, John M. 2011. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofi t Organizations: A
Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. 4th ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bryson, John M., Kathryn S. Quick, Carissa Schively Slotterback, and Barbara C.
Crosby. 2013. Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration
Review 73(1): 23–34.

Budd, John W. 2014. Implicit Public Values and the Creation of Publicly Valuable
Outcomes: Th e Importance of Work and the Contested Role of Labor Unions.
Public Administration Review 74(4): 506–16.

Christensen, Tom, and Per Lægreid. 2007. Th e Whole-of-Government Approach to
Public Sector Reform. Public Administration Review 67(6): 1059–66.

Cleveland, Harlan. 2002. Nobody in Charge: Essays on the Future of Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cole, Martin, and Greg Parston. 2006. Unlocking Public Value: A New Model
for Achieving High Performance in Public Service Organizations. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.

Cooper, Terry L., Th omas A. Bryer, and Jack W. Meek. 2006. Citizen-Centered
Collaborative Public Management. Special issue, Public Administration Review
66: 76–88.

Crenson, Matthew A., and Benjamin Ginsberg. 2002. Downsizing Democracy: How
America Sidelined Its Citizens and Privatized Its Public. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2005. Leadership for the Common Good:
Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dahl, Adam, and Joe Soss. 2014. Neoliberalism for the Common Good? Public
Value Governance and the Downsizing of Democracy. Public Administration
Review 74(4): 496–504.

Davis, Paul, and Karen West. 2009. What Do Public Values Mean for Public
Action? Putting Public Values in Th eir Plural Place. American Review of Public
Administration 39(6): 602–18.

Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2011. Th e New Public Service: Serving,
Not Steering. 3rd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Dewey, John. 1927. Th e Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1954.
Dubnick, Melvin J., and H. George Frederickson. 2010. Accountable Agents: Federal

Performance Measurement and Th ird-Party Government. Supplement 1, Journal
of Public Administration Research and Th eory 20: i143–59.

conceptual, political, organizational, managerial, and other limits
on public managers seeking to create public value in particular
circumstances.

Institutions and processes matter for the creation of public value,
the realization of public values, and the preservation and enhance-
ment of the public sphere (Benington and Moore 2011; Budd
2014; Dahl and Soss 2014; Jacobs 2014; Kalambokidis 2014;
Moore 2014; Radin 2012; Talbot 2010; West and Davis 2011).
Th e research on performance management regimes makes this clear.
Such regimes and the institutions and processes that produce and
sustain them, as well as the consequences for public value, should be
the focus of much additional work. Th e same is true of collabora-
tive, networked governance processes. Work thus should continue
on linking managerial behavior attempting to create public value
with institutions and processes and policy-level and other important
public values related to democratic and collaborative governance
(Jørgensen and Bozeman 2007).

Another part of that work is to bring in scholarship from other
fi elds to help enrich the conversation at a time when public
administration can be viewed as too insular (Wright 2011). We look
forward to continued research and learning that will determine
whether the public value literature will override the challenges and
take a permanent place in the ongoing development of the fi eld of
public administration scholarship and practice.

Note
1. Th is introduction and the symposium articles in this issue stem from an inter-

national conference on “Creating Public Value in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power
World,” held at the University of Minnesota on September 20–22, 2012. Th e
conference was co-sponsored by three units of the University of Minnesota:
the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Aff airs, the Carlson School of
Management, and the Center for Integrative Leadership. Th e Minnesota
Humanities Center was a co-sponsor.

References
Agranoff , Robert. 2006. Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public

Managers. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 56–65.
Alexander, Ernest R. 2002. Th e Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to

Substantive Plan Evaluation. Planning Th eory 1(3): 226–49.
Alford, John. 2008. Th e Limits to Traditional Public Administration, or Rescuing

Public Value from Misrepresentation. Australian Journal of Public Administration
67(3): 357–66.

Alford, John, Jean Hartley, and Owen Hughes. Forthcoming. Political Astuteness as
an Aid to Discerning and Creating Public Value. In Valuing Public Value, edited
by John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Alford, John, and Owen Hughes. 2008. Public Value Pragmatism as the Next
Phase of Public Management. American Review of Public Administration 38(2):
130–48.

Alford, John, and Janine O’Flynn. 2009. Making Sense of Public Value:
Concepts, Critiques, and Emergent Meanings. International Journal of Public
Administration 32(3–4): 171–91.

Andersen, Lotte Bøgh, Torben Beck Jørgensen, Anne Mette Kjeldsen, Lene Holm
Pedersen, and Karsten Vrangbæk. 2012. Public Value Dimensions: Developing
and Testing a Multi-Dimensional Classifi cation. International Journal of Public
Administration 35(11): 715–28.

Appleby, Paul H. 1945. Big Democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management 455

Meynhardt, Timo. 2009. Public Value Inside: What Is Public Value Creation?
International Journal of Public Administration 32(3–4): 192–219.

———. Forthcoming. Public Value—Turning a Conceptual Framework into
a Scorecard. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John M. Bryson, Barbara
C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
pre-publication draft.

Meynhardt, Timo, and Jorg Metelmann. 2009. Pushing the Envelope: Creating
Public Value in the Labor Market: An Empirical Study of the Role of Middle
Managers. International Journal of Public Administration 32(3–4): 274–312.

Mitnick, Barry M. 1976. A Typology of Conceptions of the Public Interest.
Administration & Society 8(1): 5–28.

Moore, Mark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

———. 2013. Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 2014. Public Value Accounting: Establishing the Philosophical Basis. Public

Administration Review 74(4): 465–77.
———. Forthcoming. Recognizing Public Value: Developing a Public Value

Account and a Public Value Scorecard. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John
M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Moulton, Stephanie. 2009. Putting Together the Publicness Puzzle: A Framework for
Realized Publicness. Public Administration Review 69(5): 889–900.

Moynihan, Donald P. 2006. Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a
Decade of Reform. Public Administration Review 66(1): 77–89.

Moynihan, Donald P., Sergio Fernandez, Soonhee Kim, Kelly M. LeRoux, Suzanne J.
Piogrowski, Bradley E. Wright, and Kaifeng Yang. 2011. Performance Regimes
amidst Governance Complexity. Supplement 1, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Th eory 21: i141–55.

Mulgan, Richard. 2000. “Accountability”: An Ever-Expanding Concept. Public
Administration 78(3): 555–73.

Nabatchi, Tina. 2012. Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research:
Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration
Review 72(5): 699–708.

O’Flynn, Janine. 2007. From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic
Change and Managerial Implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration
66(3): 353–66.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, Stephen P., ed. 2010. Th e New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on
the Th eory and Practice of Public Governance. New York: Routledge.

Osborne, Stephen, and Louise Brown. 2013. Handbook of Innovation in Public
Services. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Ostrom, Vincent. 1973. Th e Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Ostrom, Vincent, and Elinor Ostrom. 1971. Public Choice: A Diff erent Approach
to the Study of Public Administration. Public Administration Review 31(2):
203–16.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr., Kenneth J. Meier, and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2005.
Managing Upward, Downward, and Outward: Networks, Hierarchical
Relationships and Performance. Public Management Review 7(1): 45–68.

Peters, B. Guy, and John Pierre. 1998. Government without Governance? Rethinking
Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 8(2):
223–43.

Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A
Comparative Analysis—New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-
Weberian State. New York: Oxford University Press.

Radin, Beryl A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability,
Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Epstein, Seymour. 1989. Values from the Perspective of Cognitive-Experiential
Self-Th eory. In Social and Moral Values, edited by Nancy Eisenberg, Janusz
Reykowski, and Ervin Staub, 3–22. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

———. 1993. Emotion and Self-Th eory. In Handbook of Emotions, edited by
Michael Lewis and Jeanette M. Haviland, 313–26. New York: Guilford Press.

———. 2003. Cognitive-Experiential Self-Th eory of Personality. In Handbook of
Psychology, vol. 5, Personality and Social Psychology, edited by Howard Tennen,
Jerry Suls, and Irving B. Weiner, 159–84. New York: Wiley.

Fisher, Th omas. 2014. Public Value and the Integrative Mind: How Multiple Sectors
Can Collaborate in City Building. Public Administration Review 74(4): 457–64.

Frederickson, H. George. 1991. Toward a Th eory of the Public for Public
Administration. Administration & Society 22(4): 395–417.

Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Special
issue, Public Administration Review 66: 66–75.

Gallup. 2014. Confi dence in Institutions. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/
confi dence-institutions.aspx [accessed May 7, 2014].

Gore, Al. 1993. Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Th e Report of
the National Performance Review. New York: Plume.

Gulick, Luther. 1933. Politics, Administration, and the New Deal. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 169: 55–66.

Gunn, John. 1969. Politics and the Public Interest in the Seventeenth Century. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.

Hartley, Jean. Forthcoming. Th e Creation of Public Value through Step-Change
Innovation in Public Organizations. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John M.
Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Hood, Christopher. 1991. A Public Management for All Seasons. Public
Administration 69(1): 3–19.

Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2014. Th e Contested Politics of Public Value. Public
Administration Review 74(4): 480–94.

Jørgensen, Torben Beck, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public Values: An Inventory.
Administration & Society 39(3): 354–81.

Kalambokidis, Laura. 2014. Creating Public Value with Tax and Spending Policies:
Th e View from Public Economics. Public Administration Review 74(4): 519–26.

Kaufman, Herbert. 1969. Administrative Decentralization and Political Power. Public
Administration Review 29(1): 3–15.

Kelly, Gavin, Geoff Mulgan, and Stephen Muers. 2002. Creating Public Value:
An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. Discussion on paper
prepared for the Cabinet Offi ce Strategy Unit, United Kingdom. http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100416132449/http://www.cabinetoffi ce.
gov.uk/media/cabinetoffi ce/strategy/assets/public_value2 [accessed May
12, 2014].

Kernaghan, Kenneth. 2003. Integrating Values into Public Service: Th e Values
Statement as Centerpiece. Public Administration Review 63(6): 711–19.

Kettl, Donald F. 2002. Th e Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for
Twenty-First Century America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. 2008. Th e Next Government of the United States: Why Our Institutions Fail Us
and How to Fix Th em. New York: W. W. Norton.

Kroll, Alexander, and Donald P. Moynihan. Forthcoming. Creating Public Value
Using Performance Information. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John M.
Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, pre-publication draft.

Mansbridge, Jane, ed. 1990. Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McGinnis, Michael, and Elinor Ostrom. 2012. Refl ections on Vincent Ostrom,

Public Administration, and Polycentricity. Public Administration Review 72(1):
15–25.

McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We
Know and How We Know It. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66:
33–43.

456 Public Administration Review • July | August 2014

———. 2012. Federal Management Reform in a World of Contradictions. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W., and John Wanna. 2007. Th e Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing
Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians. Australian Journal of
Public Administration 66(4): 406–21.

Roberts, Alasdair. 1995. Civic Discovery as a Rhetorical Strategy. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management 14(2): 291–307.

Romzek, Barbara S., Kelly LeRoux, and Jeannette M. Blackmar. 2012. Preliminary
Th eory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors.
Public Administration Review 72(2): 442–53.

Rosenbloom, David H. 2007. Reinventing Administrative Prescriptions: Th e Case
for Democratic-Constitutional Impact Statements and Scorecards. Public
Administration Review 67(1): 28–39.

Rosenbloom, David H., and Howard E. McCurdy, eds. 2006. Revisiting Waldo’s
Administrative State: Constancy and Change in Public Administration.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Salamon, Lester M., ed. 2002. Th e Tools of Government: A Guide to the New
Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making
Processes in Administrative Organizations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.

Smith, R. F. I. 2004. Focusing on Public Value: Something New and Something Old.
Australian Journal of Public Administration 63(4): 68–79.

Sorauf, Frank. 1957. Th e Public Interest Reconsidered. Journal of Politics 19(4):
616–39.

Stoker, Gerry. 2006. Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked
Governance? American Review of Public Administration 36(1): 41–57.

Talbot, Colin. 2010. Th eories of Performance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Th omson, Anne-Marie, and James L. Perry. 2006. Collaboration Processes: Inside the
Black Box. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 19–32.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1840. Democracy in America. Ed. J. P. Mayer. New York:
Harper, 1969.

Van der Wal, Zeger, Tina Nabatchi, and Gjalt de Graaf. 2013. From Galaxies
to Universe: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Analysis of Public Values
Publications from 1969 to 2012. American Review of Public Administration.
Online. 23 May 2013.

Van Wart, Montgomery. 1998. Changing Public Sector Values. New York: Garland.
Waldo, Dwight. 1948. Th e Administrative State: A Study of the Political Th eory of

American Public Administration. New Brunswick, NJ : Transaction, 2007.
Welch, Jennie, Heather Rimes, and Barry Bozeman. Forthcoming. Public Value

Mapping. In Valuing Public Value, edited by John M. Bryson, Barbara C. Crosby,
and Laura Bloomberg. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pre-publication
draft.

West, Karen, and Paul Davis. 2011. What Is the Public Value of Government
Action? Towards a (New) Pragmatic Approach to Values Questions in Public
Endeavours. Public Administration 89(2): 226–41.

Williams, Iestyn, and Heather Shearer. 2011. Appraising Public Value: Past, Present
and Futures. Public Administration 89(4): 1367–84.

Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. Th e Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly
2(2): 197–222.

Wolf, Charles, Jr. 1979. A Th eory of Nonmarket Failure: Framework for
Implementation Analysis. Journal of Law and Economics 22(1): 107–39.

Wright, Bradley E. 2011. Public Administration as an Interdisciplinary Field:
Assessing Its Relationship with Other Fields of Law, Management, and Political
Science. Public Administration Review 71(1): 96–101.

Join Public Administration Review on Facebook

to fi nd out more about issue updates and upcoming calls for papers

(http://www.facebook.com/PAReview).

CHAPTER 11

Opportunities for the Future: Globalization, Democracy, and
the New Public Service

 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Understanding the importance of public service to society

2. Becoming familiar with opportunities and challenges facing the field

3. Understanding the impact of globalization on public administration

4. Learning about the increasing importance of involving citizens in the governance process

5. Understanding the critical role of ethics in public administration

 SUMMARY OVERVIEW

Chapter 11 emphasizes the fundamental importance of the public sector in society and the role of

public servants, providing insight into recent trends in the public service and the related

challenges that have implications for the future of the field. Two major worldwide trends—

globalization and increasing democratization—are examined in the context of recent economic

challenges. This includes discussions about the impact of globalization on public administrators,

the role of citizens in the governance process, and the critical role that ethics play in the public

service.

The authors begin with an overview of the changes in support for the public service in the last

few decades, noting that while public administrators seemed to be under attack fairly consistently

beginning in the 1960s, in recent years the environment has become more positive, particularly at

the state and local levels. This overview is tied to a discussion about trends in the public service

set in the context of the changing economic conditions over the last several decades, detailing the

challenges these changes have created. Next, the impact of globalization is addressed, including

the implications for public administrators at all levels and suggestions for the kinds of analyses

needed to better understand these trends.

The discussion turns next to the role of citizens in governance. This includes an overview of

trends worldwide in this area, along with a discussion about the challenges public administrators

face in attempting to deal with this shift toward more direct forms of citizen participation. The

authors offer examples of current efforts in the United States and discuss what will be needed in

order for such efforts to be successful in creating an environment that fosters effective and

responsible citizenship. Of particular note is the observation that public administrators need to

understand these processes not only from their own point of view but from that of the citizen as

well. As part of this discussion, the authors outline a model for the New Public Service, which

offers seven principles aimed at helping administrators build public organizations marked by

integrity and responsiveness that serve and empower citizens. The New Public Service takes to

task the contention that government should be run like a business, arguing instead that the way to

restore public confidence in the public service is to involve citizens in public decision making.

140 Chapter 11: Opportunities for the Future: Globalization, Democracy, and the New Public Service

This section also includes a review of seven actions outlined by the National League of Cities

aimed at promoting shared responsibility and citizen engagement.

The chapter moves to a discussion about the role of ethics in public service, arguing that the most

important purpose of public service is working with others to foster “good” governance across

politics, administration, and economics, with public action founded on a proper ethical basis. The

tenets of “good” governance are explored, and the chapter concludes with a call for careful

analysis and effective action by scholars and practitioners in public administration in an effort to

understand and meet the challenges that public service will face.

 CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC SERVICE

II. TRENDS IN PUBLIC SERVICE

 Public Administration in History: MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE
VOLCKER COMMISSION

A. Economic Changes and Redefining Government

III. GLOBALIZATION

IV. THE ROLE OF CITIZENS IN THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS

V. ETHICS AND THE IMPERATIVES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE

VI. A FINAL NOTE

 KEY TERMS

Civic engagement The active involvement of citizens in helping to shape the policies and

programs that affect their lives.

Ethics Process by which we clarify right and wrong and act on what we take to be right.

Globalization The rise in the interconnection and interdependence of economic and cultural

activity on an international scale.

Good governance A system of governance that is accountable, creates trust, promotes broadly

shared values, is based on effective leadership, constructs rules and standards for orderly

conduct and progressive social behavior, and is based on new and modified political and

administrative forms.

Governance The process of administering processes and systems, leading and managing, and

making decisions on behalf of a group, organization, nation-state, or other entity.

Governance is what government does.

Chapter 11: Opportunities for the Future: Globalization, Democracy, and the New Public Service 141

Moral leadership Making governing decisions based on fairness and ethical considerations

rather than personal, political, or financial concerns.

New Public Service A focus on building public institutions marked by integrity and

responsiveness that serve and empower citizens by integrating citizen discourse and the

public interest into the decision-making processes.

Subprime mortgage A type of mortgage made available to borrowers with lower credit ratings.

It carries a higher interest rate because the borrower is considered to have a higher risk of

defaulting on the loan.

 WEB LINKS

The following are links to international perspectives on governance and public

administration:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development—OECD: (www.oecd.org).

United Nations: (www.un.org/esa).

The following are links to information about local issues on a global scale:

International City/County Management Association—ICMA: (www.icma.org/).

International City Government Resource Centre: (www.geocities.com/Paris/9925).

http://www.oecd.org/

http://www.un.org/esa

http://www.icma.org/resources/index.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/9925

Public Organizations Between Old Public
Administration, New Public Management and Public
Governance: the Case of the Tuscany Region

Nicola Mario Iacovino1 & Sara Barsanti1 &
Lino Cinquini1

Published online: 20 August 2015
# The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract This paper analyzes the presence of different managerial approaches in a public
organization, the Tuscany Region of Italy. In particular, it highlights the phenomenon of
the plurality of frameworks working in the organization, namely Old Public Administra-
tion (OPA), New Public Management (NPM) and Public Governance (PG). The trans-
formation and coexistence of the above-mentioned models is tested with a content
analysis based on the perspectives of policy makers and top-level managers expressed
in interviews and on the context of administration planning and control systems found in
documents. Each managerial logic has a different relevance in the organization.

Keywords Public management . Public administration . New public management .

Public governance . Layering process

Introduction

In recent decades, public organizations have been profoundly transformed, justified by
the need to evolve and adapt to the social, economic and political contexts of our post-
industrial society. This implies that they are now facing numerous and sometimes
conflicting ideas, considerations, demands, structures and cultural elements and, for
these reasons, they are becoming increasingly complex and hybrid (Kickert 2001).

Public Organiz Rev (2017) 17:61–82
DOI 10.1007/s11115-015-0327-x

* Nicola Mario Iacovino
n.iacovino@sssup.it

Sara Barsanti
s.barsanti@sssup.it

Lino Cinquini
l.cinquini@sssup.it

1 Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà, 24-56127 Pisa,
Italy

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11115-015-0327-x&domain=pdf

Moreover, Bin a pluralistic society, where there are many criteria for success and
different causal understandings, we have to go beyond the idea of a single organiza-
tional principle to understand how public organizations work and are reformed and
look at them as composite organizations^ (Olsen 2007).

This study will explore the evidence of a composite public organization by testing
two main hypotheses: i. The coexistence of different public managerial logics in the
same institution in a certain period; ii. Regarding the theory of Christensen (2010;
2012), Olsen (2010) and Osborne (2006), the existence of a layering process of each
model, rather than a linear substitution process from one model to another. The
landscape we are referring to is an institution where Bsome aspects of the OPA have
been combined with NPM and PG features to create organizational forms in which
governance and management elements coexist with other reform features^ (Christensen
2012). In particular, elements of an Old Public Administration (OPA) and/or New
Public Management (NPM) and/or Public Governance (PG) will be tested in the case of
the Italian Region of Tuscany. It is common knowledge that Italy has always had a
BNapoleonic^ administrative tradition (Capano 2003; Mussari 1997; Ongaro 2006) and
that NPM and PG are unlikely to prevail (Fattore et al. 2012).

Firstly, a conceptual framework based on a literature review of the three
different public management models was developed. Then, an explorative quali-
tative case study to verify the coexistence of different Public Administration
models in the same organization at a certain period was conducted. The transfor-
mation process and the coexistence of different models were studied by analyzing
the perspectives of top-level managers and policy makers in interviews and the
context of administration planning and control systems found in documents and
regional laws.

Public Administration Models

Osborne (2006) highlights the fact that BPublic Administration and Management^
(PAM) has gone through three different leading models: (i) a longer, pre-eminent
model, the OPA model, spanning from the late nineteenth century to the late 1970s/
early 1980s; (ii) the NPM model, spanning from the late 1980s to the beginning of the
21st century and (iii) an emerging model, the PG model. From the 70s, the Public
Administrations (hereafter PAs) of western countries have been harshly criticized for
self-reference, inefficiency and poor orientation towards customer satisfaction. Since
the late 1970s, the majority of developed countries has carried out reforms to modernize
and improve the efficiency of their public sector. The most widespread and successful
paradigm is the New Public Management (NPM), formulated by Christopher Hood in
1991 (Hood 1991).

The New Public Management comprehends a cluster of theories and studies regard-
ing the modernization of PAs through the introduction of specific management logics
belonging to the private sector. The reforms that introduced NPM principles have been
carried out in different ways from country to country. In some cases, reforms have
focused on increasing the quality of public services for citizens-users and, in some
others, they have emphasized the scaling of public equipment (De Vries and Nemec
2013). The main goals were public service quality improvements (Balk 1996), public

62 N.M. Iacovino et al.

spending savings, more efficient administrations and more effective public policy
implementations (Flynn 1993; Frederic 1998; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000).

In the last decade, however, this model has been criticized and integrated with a new
approach, namely the Public Governance (PG) approach (Osborne 2006). This new
paradigm aims to overcome the limits of NPM, considered by its critics to be too close
to the private sector environment and, in some way, inadequate with regard to the
specificities of PA decision-making and management (Monteduro 2005). PG is based
on: (i) a general orientation of public sector companies towards the outside (commu-
nities and other social and economic public and private actors in the area) rather than
the inside; (ii) the importance of the relationship created between subjects belonging to
a given socio-economic network and (iii) the ability of the public actor, who usually has
the leading role, to manage these relationships (Badia 2007).

Transitions Between OPA, NPM and PG

When two reform waves, or sets of ideas, like NPM and post-NPM (in our case, PG),
meet, there are different mechanisms at work. Christensen (2012) states that there are
two different transition hypotheses. The first hypothesis is related to the replacement of
different public management models. In this sense, Post-NPM represents a new era of
administrative reforms by replacing the former NPM reforms. The hypothesis is often
represented as a pendulum swing.

An alternative hypothesis that is closer to our view is the idea of layering,
whereby reforms supplement or complement one another in a sort of sedimenta-
tion process (Christensen and Lægreid 2010, 2011; Streeck and Thelen 2005).
When new reforms are added to old reforms in a layering process, the reform
landscape becomes more hybrid and complex. Rather than replacement, we see
rebalancing, adjustments, continuities and mixtures of old and new reform fea-
tures. Mergers and partnerships are installed, but NPM features are not rejected,
and traditional bureaucratic forms of specialization and coordination are
reintroduced in new versions. We may face coupling, followed by decoupling,
and the reintroduction of traditional bureaucratic forms of specialization partly
inspired by NPM. NPM cannot be said to be surpassed; rather it has been
integrated and improved by the new principles of public governance: «Many
NPM- based tools and instruments are still used and optimized in order to support
process improvements. Internally governments are still trying to optimize their
internal workings. They do this by many different patterns, at least partly diverg-
ing from the ideas of NPM, which in itself showed significant shortcomings,
although the emphasis therein seems to shift from increased efficiency to im-
proved effectiveness» (De Vries and Nemec 2013). The consequence at an orga-
nizational level is the creation of new hybrid organizational forms, in which Old
Public Administration has been combined with NPM and post-NPM features
(Christensen 2012).

A Matrix for the Comparison of the Different Models

In order to systematize and compare the key management and governance aspects in
each of the three different models (OPA-NPM and PG), a matrix has been proposed.

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 63

The matrix, as described in Table 1, is made up of a set of dimensions of analysis that
are intended to highlight the rationale and philosophy of each model, by considering
the main variables used by researchers to characterize the models. The framework is
mainly inspired by the systematizations of Cepiku (2005), Galdiero (2009), Di Filippo
(2005), Monteduro (2005), Rotondo (2011), Sancino (2010), Osborne (2006), Ewalt
(2001), Barzelay (1992), Denhardt and Denhardt (2003), O’Flynn (2007), Kooiman
and Van Vliet 1993; Mulgan (2000), Shamsul Haque (2000), Hinna (2008),
Meneguzzo (2006), Considine (1999, 2001); Considine and Lewis (2003), Padovani
et al. (2010). The dimensions consider the focus of each model on the predominant
logic, the objectives and workload system, the internal and external relations of the PA,
the accountability and planning and control systems orientation, and the organizational
and governance models. Although each dimension has fuzzy limits, the matrix captures
the value statement and basic assumption of the different models, so that the

orientation is highlighted.

The Italian Context

With regard to the implementation of the managerial requalification of PAs, the Italian
context lags behind the international cycle (Ongaro et al. 2013). Only since the 1990s,
have NPM logics been introduced by Italian law and mainly with a top-down approach:
this process has been described as Ba process of modernization managed by law^ (Di
Filippo 2005; Cepiku et al. 2008).

The task of applying these reform logics is far from being accomplished; an
Bimplementation gap^ is highlighted in the international and national literature and in
public debates on Italy’s public administrations and policies (Ongaro and Valotti 2008).

However, this gap is different in the various administrative sectors and regions
because local administrations tend to be more creative, receptive and innovative
(ibidem, Cepiku et al. 2008).

An analysis of the PA paradigms in a regional context is pertinent because of the
continuing decentralization process in Italy. Italian regional administrations have a
multifunctional activity, because they have many areas of expertise and there are two
simultaneous decision-making levels; a political one and a technical one, with the latter
performed by top-level management.

The Case Study The object of this case study is the Tuscany Region. Established as an
BOrdinary Statute^ region, Tuscany started to operate autonomously in the second half
of the 1970s. The region now has about 3,700,000 inhabitants and it is one of the most
developed and wealthiest Italian regions (ISTAT 2012). The Statute lays down regional
planning as the core process of all regional activities and sets annual and periodical
goals.

Tuscany is considered one of the most innovative regions regarding PA management
and it is particularly dedicated to NPM (Cinquini and Vainieri 2008; Nuti et al. 2012).
In 2011 (the year reviewed here) the regional PA had 2269 employees, 131 of whom
were managers. The regional operating structure was composed of a Regional Attorney
General, which is autonomous, and five General Directorates (GDs), each responsible
for a different sector (Regional Law n. 01/2009). They are responsible for regional

64 N.M. Iacovino et al.

targets in their areas of expertise and they each have independent accounting, planning
and control systems.

Methodology

Our goal is to verify the presence of a single model or the coexistence of different
models (or dimensions of the three models) through an exploratory analysis of a single
case study in a specific period of time (Roberts and Bradley 2002). Our final aim is to
verify the relation between the three models by testing the substitution or layering
process hypothesis (Christensen 2012).

We conducted a content analysis method on (i) semi-structured interviews and (ii)
regional laws and documents (listed in the appendix). Interviews were conducted with
the general directors of the 5 GDs, the Attorney general and the regional vice-president
(the policy-maker). In all, 11 people were interviewed and 20 interview hours were
recorded from October to December 2011.

The semi-structured interviews were based on pre-selected themes and the most
investigated were: (i) Managing activities and work systems; (ii) Management and
control systems, goals assigned to the Directorates; (iii) Organizational performance
evaluation systems and (iv) Future expectations for the work system and the evaluation,
planning and control systems.

Documents and regional laws were selected by topic. They all refer to rules or
regional laws dealing with planning and control issues, and they were issued both by
the regional presidency and the single GDs. Table 1 was used as a template to perform a
content analysis of the interviews and documents, highlighting the key concepts of each
dimension and model.

Content analysis consisted in codifying pieces of writing into various items (or
categories) depending on selected criteria (Weber 1922). This approach is used in the
literature to carry out qualitative research in accounting, management and governance
inside PAs (Fattore et al. 2012; Duriau et al. 2007). Following the content analysis
method developed in Fattore et al. (2012), Marcuccio and Steccolini (2009) and
Cinquini et al. (2012), a list of key words was identified for each OPA, NPM and
PG dimension, in order to help classify relevant expressions (Table 2). We performed a
textual analysis, as specified in Table 2, when dimensions did not have key words or
when they had similar key words.

In order to enhance the reliability of our content analysis, interviews and documents
were analyzed separately and independently by two different coders (the first and
second authors), and discrepancies between them were re-examined in collaboration
with a third researcher (the third author).

After completing the content analysis, the models were evaluated by counting how
often each item appeared in each model, in order to fully understand the respondents’
views.

The interview results of both the policy-maker and top-level managers were ana-
lyzed with two different perspectives: one concerned their actual experience, which
refers to the way they usually run their daily activities, tasks, processes and flows, and
one concerned their expectations, which refers to the way they Bwish^ to run their daily
activities, especially concerning performance evaluation and planning systems.

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 65

T
ab

le
1

P
ub
li
c

m
an

ag
em

en
t

m
o
de
ls
re
fe
re
nc
e
m
at
ri
x
.
R
ef
er
re
d
to
:
O
sb
or
n
e
(2
00
6)
,
C
ep
ik
u
(2
00
5
),
G
al
di
er
o
(2
0
09
),
D
i
F
il
ip
po

(2
00
5
),
M
on
te
du
ro

(2
00
5)
,
R
o
to
n
do

(2
01
1)
,
S
an
ci
n
o

(2
0
10
),
E
w
al
t
(2
00
1
),
B
ar
ze
la
y
(1
9
92
),
D
en
h
ar
dt

an
d

D
en
h
ar
dt

(2
00
3
),
O
’F
ly
nn

(2
0
07
),
K
oo
im

an
d

V
an

V
li
et

1
99
3
;
M
ul
ga
n
(2
00
0
),
S
ha
m
su
l
H
aq
ue

(2
00
0)
,
H
in
na

(2
00
8)
,

M
en
eg
uz
zo

(2
0
06
),
C
o
n
si
d
in
e
(1
99
9
,
2
00
1
);
C
on
si
di
ne

an
d

L
ew

is
(2
0
03
),
P
ad
ov
an
i
et
al
.
(2
01
0)

O
ld

P
ub
li
c
A
dm

in
is
tr
at
io
n
O
PA

N
ew

P
u
bl
ic
M

an
ag
em

en
t
N
P
M

P
ub
li
c
G
ov
er
na
nc
e
P
G

L
ea
d
in
g
lo
gi
c/
S
u
b
je
ct

T
h
e
m
os
t
im

p
or
ta
n
t
lo
gi
c
w
hi
ch

st
an
ds

ab
ov
e
or
g
an
iz
at
io
n

m
an
ag
em

en
t
(G

al
di
er
o
2
00
9
).

B
u
re
au
cr
at
ic
.

F
o
cu
s
o
n

L
eg
it
im

ac
y,
co
m
pl
ia
n
ce

w
it
h
st
ri
ct
pr
ed
et
er
m
in
ed

ru
le
s
an
d
pr
oc
ed
ur
es

In
te
rn
al

ef
fi
ci
en
cy
.

F
oc
us

o
n
M
an

ag
em

en
t
an

th
e

w
or
ki
n
g
lo
gi
c
of

ea
ch

si
ng
le
PA

S
y
st
em

ef
fi
ci
en
cy
,
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s.

F
o
cu
s
on

p
ol
ic
y-
m
ak

in
g,

p
u
b
li
c
se
rv
ic
es
,

m
an
ag
em
en
t
an

d
d
em

oc
ra
cy

S
ys
te
m
ic
ap

p
ro
ac
h

D
im

en
si
on

g
iv
en

by
G
al
di
er
o
(2
00
9
)
an
d

b
as
ed

on
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on

th
eo
ry

(T
ho
m
ps
o
n

1
96
7
,
D
en
ha
rd
t
an
d
D
en
ha
rd
t
20
0
3)

C
lo
se
d

sy
st
em

T
h
e
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on

is
ce
nt
er
ed

o
n
it
s
in
te
rn
al
b
ur
ea
uc
ra
ti
c

an
d
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
iv
e
dy
na
m
ic
s

w
it
h
in
ad
eq
ua
te
co
nc
er
n

fo
r

th
e
ex
te
rn
al

en
v
ir
o
nm

en
t

P
ar
ti
al
ly

cl
os
ed

sy
st
em

T
he

or
g
an
iz
at
io
n
is
or
ie
nt
ed

to
w

ar
ds

re
su
lt
s

P
ar
ti
al
ly

op
en

sy
st
em
T
h
e
or
ga
ni
za
ti
on

is
m
or
e
o
ri
en
te
d

to
w
ar
ds

re
la
ti
on

sh
ip
s

an
d
it
s
st
ra
te
gi
c

ex
te
rn
al
en
vi
ro
nm

en
t,
by

st
im

ul
at
in
g

pr
o
ce
ss

of
in
te
gr
at
io
n
an
d
co
or
di
n
at
io
n.

P
er
sp
ec
ti
ve

In
te
rv
en
ti
o
ns

v
ie
w
po
in
t
to
w
ar
d

th
e
ex
te
rn
al
en
vi
ro
nm

en
t

(C
ep
ik
u
20
0
5,

cf
r.
K
o
oi
m
an

an
d
V
an

V
li
et
19
9
3)

M
ic
ro

/
S
el
f-
re
fe
re
n
ti
al

P
ro
ce
du
re
s
an
d
ru
le
s-
o
ri
en
te
d.

M
ic
ro

E
m
p
ha
si
s
o
n
PA

m
an
ag
em

en
t

fe
at
ur
es

In
v
ol
v
es

al
l
th
re
e
le
ve
ls
:

–
M
ic
ro

(e
ac
h
si
ng
le
PA

);
–
M
es
o
(P
A
s
an
d
co
m
pa
ny

sy
st
em

s)
–
M
ac
ro

(s
o
ci
o-
ec
on
o
m
ic
sy
st
em

s)
.

A
ct
io
n
is
fo
cu
se
d
on

th
e
ou
ts
id
e,
to
w
ar
ds

th
e
go
v
er
na
nc
e
o
f
sy
st
em

s
an
d
n
et
w
o
rk
s

in
vo
lv
in
g
so
ci
al
an
d
ec
o
no
m
ic
su
bj
ec
ts
.

R
el
ev
an

t
d
im

en
si
on

s
It

re
fe
rs
to

th
e
m
os
t
im

p
or
ta
n
t
as
pe
ct
s
w
hi
ch

co
nc
en
tr
at
e
al
l
m
an
ag
em

en
t
ac
ti
vi
ti
es

an
d

p
er
fo
rm

an
ce

ev
al
u
at
io
ns

in
PA

.
(M

en
eg
u
zz
o
2
00
6
;
B
ri
g
na
ll
an
d

M
od
el
l
20
0
0;

D
i
F
il
ip
p
o
2
00
5
)

L
eg
it
im

ac
y
an

d
A
d
m
in
is
tr
at
iv
e

co
n
fo
rm

it
y
w
it
h
ru
le
s
an
d

re
gu
la
ti
o
ns

E
ff
ec
ti
ve
n
es
s,
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
,
ec
on

om
y

T
he

fo
cu
s
is
on

ul
ti
m
at
e
p
er
fo
rm

an
ce

re
su
lt
s
in

an
ec
on
om

ic
al
an
d

m
an

ag
er

ia
l
p
er
sp
ec
ti
ve

(c
f.
th
e
so
-c
al
le
d
B3
E
’s
^
pr
in
ci
pl
es
)

E
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
,
ef
fi
ci
en
cy
,
ec
o
no
m
y

+ E
q
u
it
y,
tr
an

sp
ar
en
cy
,
et
h
ic
s,
q
u
al
it
y

im
pr
ov
em

en
t,
ec
on
om

ic
,
so
ci
al
an
d

en
v
ir
o
nm

en
ta
l
su
st
ai
n
ab

il
it
y
of

th
e

im
pl
em

en
te
d
po
li
ci
es
,
ac
co
u
n
ta
b
il
it
y:

ab
il
it
y
to

ac
co
un
t
fo
r
di
ff
er
en
t
in
te
rn
al

an
d
ex
te
rn
al

st
ak
eh
ol
d
er

66 N.M. Iacovino et al.

T
ab
le
1

(c
on
ti
nu
ed
)

O
ld
P
ub
li
c
A
dm
in
is
tr
at
io
n
O
PA
N
ew

P
u
bl
ic
M
an
ag
em

en
t
N
P
M
P
ub
li
c
G
ov
er
na
nc
e
P
G

T
h
e

pe
rf
o
rm

an
ce

ev
al
ua
ti
on

ta
ke
s
in
to

ac
co
un
t
ot
h
er

di
m
en
si
on

s
th
an

th
o
se

of
th
e
B3
E
’s
^
pr
in
ci
pl
e

In
te
rn
al
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s

T
h
is
d
im

en
si
on

re
ga
rd
s
th
o
se

fe
at
ur
es

m
ai
nl
y

in
vo
lv
ed

th
e
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip

s
be
tw
ee
n

su
bj
ec
ts
o
pe
ra
ti
ng

in
si
de

th
e
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n.

(C
ep
ik
u
20
0
5;

G
al
di
er
o
2
00
9
;
P
ol
li
tt
an
d

B
ou
ck
ae
rt
20
11
,
T
er

B
o
gt

2
00
3
)

H
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
al

re
la
ti
on

sh
ip
s,

p
la
nn
in
g
p
ri
n
ci
pl
es

of
sp
ec
ia
li
za
ti
on

an
d
ex
pe
rt
is
e

S
ep
ar
at
io
n
of

th
e
p
ol
it
ic
al

le
ve
l

fr
om

th
e

ad
m
in
is
tr
at
iv
e
le
ve
l
(m

an
ag
em

en
t)

P
ol
it
ic
ia
ns

ha
ve

a
st
ra
te
gi
c,
go
al
-s
et
ti
ng

ro
le
,

an
d
ci
vi
l
se
rv
an
ts
ar
e
su
pp
o
se
d
to

be
au
to
n
om

o
us

m
an
ag
er
s
he
ld

to
ac
co
un
t

th
ro
u
gh

pe
rf
o
rm
an
ce

ar
ra
ng
em

en
ts

an
d
in
ce
nt
iv
es

O
ve
rc
om

in
g
th
e
p
o
li
ti
ci
an

-m
an

ag
er

d
ic
h
ot
om

y
R
ec
on
ci
li
ng

in
te
re
st
s
at
th
e
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
iv
e
le
v
el
.

D
ec
is
io
n
-m

ak
in
g
co
n
te
n
ts

C
h
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
s
of

th
e
d
ec
is
io
n-
m
ak
in
g
pr
o-

ce
ss
es

an
d
ev
al
u
at
io
n
cr
it
er
ia
of

de
ci
si
o
ns

(C
ep
ik
u
20
0
5,

cf
.
K
oo
im

an
an
d
V
an

V
li
et

1
99
3
)

S
p
ec
if
ic
an

d
st
ri
ct

In
tr
od
uc
ti
on

of
m
ul
ti
pl
e
cr
it
er
ia
fo
r
th
e
ev
al
ua
ti
on

of
de
ci
si
on
s.
L
is
t
of

cr
it
er
ia
to

us
ed

in
or
de
r

to
de
ci
d
e
an
d
ev
al
ua
te
th
e
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
of

de
ci
si
on
s

−
F
le
xi
b
il
it
y
+

D
if
fe
re
nc
es

in
th
is
d
im

en
si
o
n
ar
e
nu
an
ce
d
be
tw
ee
n
th
e
tw
o
m
o
de
ls
,
co
ns
is
ti
ng

in
gr
ea
te
r
or

le
ss
er

fl
ex
ib
il
it
y
an
d
ad
ap
ta
bi
li
ty

o
f
d
ec
is
io
ns

re
ga
rd
in
g
an

ad
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n’
s
in
te
rv
en
ti
o
ns

E
xt
er
n
al

re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s

N
at
ur
e
of

th
e
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip

b
et
w
ee
n
PA

an
d
ot
he
r

pu
bl
ic
an
d

pr
iv
at
e
ac
to
rs

(C
ep
ik
u
20
0
5,
cf
r.
K
o
oi
m
an
an
d
V
an

V
li
et
1
99
3
;
G
al
di
er
o
20
09
)

P
u
b
li
c
m
on

op
ol
y

PA
is
th
e
on
ly

pr
ov
id
er

o
f
pu
b
li
c
se
rv
ic
es

C
om

p
et
it
io
n
/
co
n
tr
as
t
pu
bl
ic
-p
ub
li
c

an
d
p
ub
li
c-
pr
iv
at
e.

F
ra
gm

en
ta
ti
o
n/
d
is
in
te
g
ra
ti
o
n

of
th
e
BP
A

sy
st
em

^
.

C
oo
p

er
at
io
n

on
g
PA

s,
ot
h
er

pu
bl
ic
an
d

pr
iv
at
e
su
bj
ec
ts
.

A
cc
ou

n
ta
b
il
it
y

T
h
e
p
ri
nc
ip
le
of

Bb
ei
ng

ca
ll
ed

to
ac
co
u
nt

fo
r

o
ne
’s
ac
ti
o
n
s^

(M
u
lg
an

2
00
0
;
S
ha
m
su
l

H
aq
u
e
2
00
0
).

U
se
r

C
it
iz
en

as
a
Bp
as
si
ve
^
su
bj
ec
t

C
li
en
t

C
li
en
t
is
se
en

as
a
be
ar
er

of
in
te
re
st
s

an
d
n
ee
ds

PA
C
it
iz
en

N
ot

ju
st
se
rv
ic
e
us
er
s
or

cu
st
o
m
er
s,

bu
t
al
so

ac
ti
ve

pu
b
li
c
po
li
cy

re
ci
pi
en
ts

P
la
n
n
in
g
an

d
co
n
tr
ol

sy
st
em

s
or
ie
n
ta
ti
on

(H
in
na

20
0
8;

E
w
al
t
2
00
1
;

B
ar
ze
la
y
19
9
2)

In
p
u
t,
fo
rm

al
re
su
lt
s

M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em

em
p
ha
si
s
is

o
n
th
e

re
so
u
rc
es

us
ed

(i
n
pu
t)
,

es
p
ec
ia
ll
y
fi
n
an
ci
al
re
so
ur
ce
s.

O
u
tp
u
t

M
ea
su
re
m
en
t
sy
st
em

em
ph
as
is
is
se
t

on
go
o
ds

an
d
se
rv
ic
es

d
el
iv
er
ed

(o
u
tp
ut
),

in
st
ea
d
of

re
so
u
rc
es

us
ed
.

O
ut
pu
t,
O
u
tc
om

e
M
ul
ti
pl
e
ob
je
ct
iv
es

ar
e
m
ea
su
re
d,

in
cl
ud
in
g

se
rv
ic
e
ou
tp
ut
s,
sa
ti
sf
ac
ti
on
,
ou
tc
o
m
es
,

tr
us
t
an
d
le
gi
ti
m
ac
y

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 67

T
ab
le
1
(c
on
ti
nu
ed
)
O
ld
P
ub
li
c
A
dm
in
is
tr
at
io
n
O
PA
N
ew
P
u
bl
ic
M
an
ag
em
en
t
N
P
M
P
ub
li
c
G
ov
er
na
nc
e
P
G

G
ov
er
n
an

ce
m
od

el
T
h
e
d
is
ti
nc
ti
on

re
fe
rs
to

th
e
fo
ur

g
ov
er
na
n
ce

m
od
el
s
(p
ro
ce
d
ur
al
,
co
rp
or
at
e,
m
ar
ke
t,
an
d

n
et
w
or
k
)
fr
am

ew
or
k
b
y
C
on
si
di
ne

(C
on
si
di
ne

1
99
9
,
2
00
1
;
C
on
si
di
n
e
an
d

L
ew

is
20
0
3;

P
ad
ov
an
i
et
al
.
20
10
).

P
ro
ce
d
u
ra
l
go
ve
rn
an

ce
F
ol
lo
w
in
g
o
f
ru
le
s
an
d
pr
ot
o
co
ls
,

h
ig
h
re
li
an
ce

on
su
pe
rv
is
io
n,

an
d
an

ex
pe
ct
at
io
n
th
at
ta
sk
s

an
d
de
ci
si
on
s
w
il
l
be

w
el
l

sc
ri
pt
ed
.

C
or
p
or
at
e
go
ve
rn
an

ce
B
ud
g
et
in
g
an
d
re
po
rt
in
g
ar
e
co
n
si
de
ra
bl
y

im
po
rt
an
t,
an
d
us
in
g
th
em

in
a
pu
bl
ic

ad
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n
co
nc
en
tr
at
es

on
ou
tp
ut
s

in
st
ea
d
o
f
in
pu
ts
,f
o
cu
si
ng

on
sp
ec
if
ic
g
ro
u
ps

of
ci
ti
ze
ns

w
ho

ar
e
re
ce
iv
in
g
se
rv
ic
es
.

M
ar
k
et

or
N
et
w
or
k
G
ov
er
n
an

ce
M
ar
ke
t
g
ov
er
n
an
ce
,
co
nt
ra
ct
in
g
ou
t,

co
m
pe
ti
ti
ve

te
nd
er
s,
an
d
p
ri
n
ci
p
al
ag
en
t

se
p
ar
at
io
n
ar
e
em

p
lo
y
ed

to
re
sp
on
d
to

fi
na
nc
ia
l
si
gn
al
s
an
d
co
m
pe
ti
ti
ve

pr
es
su
re
.

In
ne
tw
o
rk

m
od
el
s,
th
e
go
v
er
nm

en
tc
on
ti
nu
es

to
re
ly

o
n
o
ut
si
de

ag
en
ci
es
,
bu
t
in

a
st
ro
n
ge
r

st
ra
te
gi
c
p
ar
tn
er
sh
ip
,
an
d
w
h
er
e
co
m
p
et
it
io
n

an
d
co
nf
id
en
ti
al
it
y
o
f
co
nt
ra
ct
s
ar
e

su
bs
ti
tu
te
d
by

jo
in
t
ac
ti
on
.

68 N.M. Iacovino et al.

T
ab

le
2

K
ey

w
or
d
s
fo
r
ea
ch

di
m
en
si
on

of
pu
bl
ic
m
an
ag
er
ia
l
m
od
el
s
(k
ey

w
or
ds

in
It
al
ia
n
,
m
ea
ni
ng

in
E
ng
li
sh
)

O
ld
P
ub
li
c
A
dm

in
is
tr
at
io
n
(O

PA
)

N
ew

P
ub
li
c
M
an
ag
em

en
t
(N

P
M
)

P
ub
li
c
G
ov
er
na
nc
e

(P
G
)

L
ea
di
ng

lo
gi
c/
S
ub
je
ct

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
b
ur
oc
ra
*

(b
u
re
au
cr
ac
y)
;
le
gi
tt
im

*
(l
eg
it
im

ac
y)
;

p
ro
ce
du
r*

(p
ro
ce
d
ur
es
)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:

ef
fi
ci
e*

(e
ff
ic
ie
nc
y)
;

ec
on
o
m
ic
*
(e
co
n
om

y
);
co
n
tr
o
ll
*

(c
on
tr
ol

an
d
to

co
nt
ro
l)
;

co
m
p
an
*

(c
om

p
an
ie
s
an
d
pr
iv
at
e
to
ol
s)
;

m
an
ag
em

en
t;
in
no
v
*

(i
n
no
v
at
io
n
an
d
re
ne
w
al
).

K
ey
w
or
d
s:
ef
fi
ci
e*

(e
ff
ic
ie
nc
y)
;
ef
fi
ca
*

(e
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
);
go
ve
rn
an
ce
;
in
n
ov
*

(i
n
no
v
at
io
n
an
d
re
ne
w
al
).

S
ys
te
m
ic
ap
p
ro
ac
h

T
ex
tu
al

an
al
ys
is

T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
K
ey

w
or
d
s:
in
te
gr
a*

(i
nt
eg
ra
ti
o
n,

to
in
te
gr
at
e)
,

co
o
rd
in
a*

(c
o
or
d
in
at
io
n,

to
co
or
di
n
at
e)

P
er
sp
ec
ti
ve
T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
K
ey

w
or
d
s:
co
n
fr
on
t*

(t
o
co
m
p
ar
e)
;
b
en
ch
m
ar
k*
;

re
t*

(n
et
w
or
k)
;
in
te
g
ra
*
(i
nt
eg
ra
ti
on
,
to

in
te
gr
at
e)
;

co
o
rd
in
a*
(c
o
or
d
in
at
io
n,

to
co
or
di
n
at
e)
;

st
ak
eh
ol
d
er

R
el
ev
an
t
di
m
en
si
on
s

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
le
gi
tt
im

*
(l
eg
it
im

ac
y
);

co
nt
ro
ll
*
(c
on
tr
ol

an
d
to
co
nt
ro
l)
;
p
ro
ce
du
r*

(p
ro
ce
d
ur
es
);
co
nf
or
m
it
y

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
ef
fi
ca
*
(e
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
);

ef
fi
ci
e*

(e
ff
ic
ie
nc
y)
;
ec
o
no
m
ic
*

(e
co
no
m
y
);
tr
an
sp
ar
en
cy

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
ef
fi
ca
*
(e
ff
ec
ti
ve
ne
ss
);
ef
fi
ci
e*

(e
ff
ic
ie
nc
y)
;
ec
on
om

ic
*
(e
co
no
m
y)
;
eq
ui
t*

(e
qu
it
y)
;
tr
an
sp
ar
en
*
(t
ra
n
sp
ar
en
cy
);
qu
al
it
y*

(q
ua
li
ty
);
so
st
en
ib
il
*
(s
us
ta
in
ab
il
it
y)
;

ac
co
un
ta
bi
li
ty
,
st
ak
eh
ol
de
rs

In
te
rn
al
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
g
er
ar
ch
*
(h
ie
ra
rc
hi
ca
l)
;

se
p
ar
ar
*
(s
ep
ar
at
io
n
or

di
st
in
ct
io
n)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
po
li
ti
c*

(p
ol
it
ic
al
)
le
ve
l;

am
m
in
is
tr
*
(a
dm

in
is
tr
at
iv
e)

le
ve
l
K
ey
w
or
d
s:
in
te
gr
a*
(i
nt
eg
ra
ti
o
n,

to
in
te
gr
at
e)
;

co
o
rd
in
a*
(c
o
or
d
in
at
io
n,
to
co
or
di
n
at
e)
;

tr
as
ve
rs
*
(c
ro
ss
-f
un
ct
io
na
l)

D
ec
is
io
n
-m

ak
in
g
co
n
te
nt
s

T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is

E
xt
er
na
l
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
s

T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
K
ey

w
or
d
s:
co
m
p
et
it
io
n

F
ra
m
m
en
t*

(f
ra
gm

en
ta
ti
o
n)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
co
op

er
at
io
n

C
o
or
d
in
a*

(c
o
or
di
na
ti
o
n,

to
co
o
rd
in
at
e)
:

co
n
ce
rt
a*

(c
on
ce
rt
at
io
n)
;
co
nd
iv
*
(s
h
ar
in
g
)

A
cc
ou
nt
ab
il
it
y
(t
ow

ar
ds

w
ho
m
)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
u
te
n
t*
(u
se
r)
;

re
sp
on
sa
bi
*
(r
es
p
on
si
ve
ne
ss
)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
cl
ie
nt
*
(c
li

en
t)
;

so
dd
is
fa
*

(s
at
is
fa
ct
io
n)
;
ac
co
un
ta
bi
li
ty
;

re
sp
o
ns
ab
i*

(r
es
po
n
si
ve
ne
ss
)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
ci
tt
ad
in
*
(c
it
iz
en
);
po
po
la
z*

(p
o
pu
la
ti
on
)
so
d
di
sf
az
io
*
(s
at
is
fa
ct
io
n)
;

ac
co
un
ta
bi
li
ty
;
re
sp
on
sa
bi
*

(r
es
p
on
si
ve
ne
ss
);
va
lu
e
fo
r
m
on
ey

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 69

T
ab
le
2

(c
o
nt
in
ue
d)

O
ld

P
ub
li
c
A
d
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n
(O

PA
)
N
ew
P
ub
li
c
M
an
ag
em
en
t
(N
P
M
)

P
ub
li
c
G
ov
er
na
n
ce

(P
G
)

P
la
n
ni
n
g
an
d
co
n
tr
ol

sy
st
em

s
o
ri
en
ta
ti
on

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
in
pu
t

va
lu
ta
*
(a
ss
es
sm

en
t)
;

co
st
*
(c
o
st
);
m
is
ur
a*

(m
ea
su
re
);

ob
ie
tt
iv
*
(t
ar
ge
t)
;
in
di
ca
to
r*

(i
nd
ic
at
or
s)
;

p
ro
g
ra
m

*
(p
ro
g
ra
m

an
d
pr
o
gr
am

m
in
g
);

pi
an
if
ic
a*

(p
la
nn
in
g)
;

co
st
*
(c
os
t)
;

ob
ie
tt
iv
*
(t
ar
ge
t,
ac
hi
ev
em

en
t)
K
ey

w
or
d
s:
va
lu
ta
*
(a
ss
es
sm

en
t)
;

o
ut
p
ut
;
p
er
fo
rm

an
ce
;
m
is
ur
a*

(m
ea
su
re
);
ob
ie
tt
iv
*
(t
ar
ge
t)
;
in
di
ca
to
r*
(i
nd
ic
at
or
s)
;

p
ro
gr
am

*
(p
ro
g
ra
m

an
d
pr
og
ra
m
m
in
g
);

pi
an
if
ic
a*

(p
la
nn
in
g)
;
o
bi
et
ti
v*

(t
ar
ge
t,
ac
h
ie
ve
m
en
t)

K
ey

w
or
d
s:
co
nf
ro
nt
*
(t
o
co
m
p
ar
e)
;
b
en
ch
m
ar
k*
;

va
lu
ta
*
(a
ss
es
sm

en
t)
;
ou
tp
u
t

as
se
ss
m
en
t;

o
ut
co
m
e
as
se
ss
m
en
t;
p
er
fo
rm

an
ce
as
se
ss
m
en
t;

im
pa
tt
*
(i
m
pa
ct
)
as
se
ss
m
en
t;
m
is
ur
a*

(m
ea
su
re
);
ob
ie
tt
iv
*
(t
ar
ge
t)
;
in
di
ca
to
r*

(i
nd
ic
at
or
s)
;
p
ro
gr
am

*
(p
ro
gr
am

an
d
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
in
g)
;
p
ia
n
if
ic
a*

(p
la
nn
in
g)
;

va
lo
r*

(v
al
ue
);
ob
ie
tt
iv
*
(t
ar
g
et
,
ac
hi
ev
em

en
t)

G
ov
er
na
nc
e
m
od
el

T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
T
ex
tu
al
an
al
ys
is
K
ey

w
or
d
s:
m
er
ca
to
*
(m

ar
ke
t)
;
re
te
*
(n
et
w
or
k)
,

fi
du
ci
a
(t
ru
st
);
re
la
ti
*
(r
el
at
io
n)

70 N.M. Iacovino et al.

Results

Table 3 summarizes the results of the content analysis, reporting the frequency of items
for each perspective and each managerial model.

The content analysis refers to: (i) Documents and planning laws; (ii) the Policy
maker’s experience and expectations and (iii) Top management’s experience and
expectations.

The Strategic Orientation of the Region: The Perspective of Regional Acts
and Laws

As shown in Table 4, regional programming laws and acts appear to be strongly
focused on PG logics: 73 % of them (46 out 63) express concepts on aspects of the
PG model. The remaining (17 out 63) refer to NPM, and none refer to OPA.

Concepts related to the leading logic of PG are found in 11 cases out of 19.
This trend is especially highlighted in many parts of the programmatic speeches of

the president and in the government program, which underlines the importance of the
coordination role of the regional authority over the many different public and private
subjects considered as a network, and it is a key element of post-NPM trends
(Christensen 2012):

«Tuscany is a Bnetwork city^ of about 3.7 million inhabitants. While its history
and territorial characteristics would encourage us to protect the specificity and
diversity of each town municipality, the development and the new concepts of
networking and integration encourage us to overcome localism and local pecu-
liarities (…)» (Programmatic speech of the Regional President).

The pursuit of efficiency at a systemic level and of effectiveness in terms of policy-
making outcomes seems clear:

«For example, the various regional councilors (the equivalent of ministers in a
national government, Ed.) can no longer limit themselves to forming policies;

Table 3 Overall results

Object of analysis Old public
administration

New public
management

Public
governance

Tot.

Regional acts and laws
(the strategic orientation of the Region)

– 17 46 63

The policy maker: the vice-president
(experience)

5 3 7 15

The policy maker: the vice-president
(expectations)

– 2 3 5

Top management (experience) 29 19 9 57

Top management (expectations) – 17 14 31

Total 34 58 79 171

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 71

they must also take responsibility for the effectiveness of their interventions, to
the extent of their competence». (Government program).

Several references to NPM logics and tools can be found in the same documents as
well and they are considered essential for a smooth-running regional machine, such as a
Bmission budget^, a Bmodern system of analytical controls^, and a Bsystem of perfor-
mance appraisal^. They are regarded in PM literature as Befficiency artifacts^, i.e. a
wide range of instruments employed by managers to solve current problems in public
organizations (Vakkuri 2010).

All items regarding system dimensions, perspectives, contents, decision-
making contents, accountability and external relations are attributable to the PG
model. An open-system approach, characterized by integration and coordination
logics, emerges in many of the regional laws examined, starting with Regional
Law n. 26 of 1992, which regulates, for the first time ever, the regional planning
process, focusing, inter alia, on the principles of participation and transparency.
The underlying perspective is clearly of the multi-level type, and it integrates the
micro, meso and macro dimensions.

Another important dimension that often recurs in the documents on planning is that
of the economic and environmental sustainability of policies. It affects the orientation
of the planning and control systems towards the PG model. The focus on obtaining
results – seen through their impact on citizens – appears clear. Indeed, the Regional
Development Program (RDP) includes a set of context indicators and comparisons
between Italian regions, in addition to some result indicators on the action plans of the
legislature.

The Perspective of the Policy Maker

The experience and the expectations perceived by the regional vice-president reveal a
high prevalence of logics which are consistent with the PG model. As shown in Table 5,

Table 4 The strategic orientation of the region: results of our analysis of regional acts and laws

Dimensions Old public
administration

New public
management
Public
governance
Tot.

Leading logic/Subject – 8 11 19

Systemic approach – – 8 8

Perspective – – 2 2

Relevant dimensions – 6 4 10

Internal relationships – – – –

Decision-making contents – – 3 3

External relationships – – 2 2

Accountability (towards whom) – – 3 3

Planning and control systems’ orientation – 2 8 10

Governance model – 1 5 6

Total – 17 46 63

72 N.M. Iacovino et al.

this happens in 7 out of 15 concepts and almost all of them (5) are related to the internal
relations dimension.

The regional vice-president’s interview shows how she aims to overcome the
politician-manager dichotomy (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011), and how she balances
interests at the administration level through trust, collaboration and flexible
relationships.

NPM-related elements stand out in the orientation of the planning and control
systems (2 concepts out of 3 for the NPM model, and 1 out of 3 for the OPA model)
which are mainly based on output indicators to measure targets and activities. However,
according to the vice-president, they do not express the whole truth about target
achievement:

This year, many indicators were related to output measures. The problem is to
understand if these types of measures are sufficient or if, for some of the cross-
functional issues, such as the management efficiency of the administration
machine, it is possible to use a Btrue^ indicator, not in terms of output but in
terms of outcome, the equivalent of sales.

OPA-related concepts highlight critical issues due to lasting and typically bureau-
cratic logics, in particular, the lack of cross-functional thinking and flexibility. The vice
president underlines the so-called problem of Bsiloization^ (or Bpillarization^,
Christensen 2012):

They still work too much in silos here and this is a serious problem in a public
administration where knowledge, even a little knowledge, is power. In this way,

Table 5 The policy maker’s perspective

Old public administration New public management Public governance

Dimensions Expectations Experience Expectations Experience Expectations Experience

Leading logic/Subject – 1 1 – – 1

Systemic approach – – – – – 1

Perspective – 1 – – – –

Relevant dimensions – – – – 1 –

Internal relationships – – – – – 5

Decision-making
contents

– – – – – –

External relationships – – – – – –

Accountability
(Towards whom)

– – – – – –

Planning and control
systems’ orientation

– 1 – 2 2 –

Governance model – 2 1 1 – –

Total – 5 2 3 3 7

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 73

you completely lose any cross-functional way of thinking, and managers should
work hard to overcome this.

Concerning the expectations of the vice-president, we should consider that, in this
case, concepts are rather few (only five). They all belong to NPM and PG, although PG
is prevalent for concepts related to planning and control systems orientation (2 out of 2).

The Top-Level Management Perspective

The daily activities of top-level management are largely dominated by OPA logics, as
presented in Table 6. Indeed, as many as 51 % (29 out of 57) of the concepts belong to
OPA, 33 % (19 out of 57) to NPM and only 16 % (9 out of 57) to PG.

Instead, top-level management expectations tend to be oriented towards the NPM
model (55 % of the concepts, 17 out of 31) and, to a lesser extent, to the PG model.

Experience Almost half of OPA-related concepts (12 out of 29) apply to the leading
logic which still appears to be bureaucratic in 12 out of the 16 concepts found.

NPM logics seem to have a problem establishing themselves, especially in the
planning, reporting and evaluation mechanisms and operations; for example, delays
are reported in planning documents, with a negative impact on management activities.

This kind of problem is also evident when there is a lack of differentiation.
According to a manager’s evaluation:

«Tuscany’s regional managers are assessed with scores between 90 and 100 %.
Now, even if I aspired to differentiate among them, I would not be able to.

Table 6 Top management’s perspective

Old public administration New public management Public governance
Dimensions Expectations Experience Expectations Experience Expectations Experience

Leading logic/Subject – 12 6 3 6 1

Systemic approach – 2 – 1 – –

Perspective – 2 1 – 1 1

Relevant dimensions – – 3 3 3 –

Internal relationships – 2 1 1 1 5

Decision-making
contents

– 2 1 4 1 2

External relationships – – – – – –

Accountability
(towards whom)

– – 1 2 1 –

Planning and control
systems’ orientation

– 7 – 2 – –

Governance model – 2 4 3 4 –

Total – 29 17 19 17 9

74 N.M. Iacovino et al.

The possibility of giving more realistic assessments, with scores at least between
50 and 100 %, also involves a discussion on the targets’ system» (GD 1).

Another manager agrees on this aspect:

«There is a problem in setting targets: you should not put year-on-year targets on things
that need to be done. Those are not real goals, but fulfillments. The goal has to become
the Bhow^ or the overcoming of what I know I must do for competence» (GD 4).

This is confirmed by the experience reported concerning the orientation of the
planning and control systems: 7 out of 9 concepts belong to OPA.

These systems and tools do not seem to improve managing activities; indeed, they
appear to be partly self-referential and oriented towards the measurement of inputs and
formal results. There are some indicators established by law, for example those on the
mapping of legislative and administrative activities, but they are not regularly used.

«Mapping processes, considering their expiration and stressing the responsibility of
the managers involved are not only elements of good administration, but they are
also legal requirements. We are obliged to carry them out because we are respon-
sible towards our citizens and every citizen should be able to know the deadlines
for administrative procedures and the persons in charge of each procedure». (GD 2)

Of the nine PG-related concepts, most of them concern internal relationships (5).
The relationship between top-level management and policy makers, which should aim
to overcome the dichotomy between the two roles (as aforementioned by the vice-
president), is confirmed by the managers interviewed. There is a relationship of trust
between policy makers and top-level managers who often have to interact:

«Problems occur when there is a conflict between the area coordinators and the
regional councilor or between the general director and the councilor, because it
may impair the trust between them and compromise the performance of their
activities». (GD 2)

Not a single concept emerged regarding external relationships, which confirm top
management’s disregard for this issue.

Expectations Most NPM-related concepts (6 out of 17) refer to the leading logic. The
managerial innovations discussed in public sector research have not been completely
implemented, as already pointed out above. A need to better define objectives and
indicators to assess their achievements is strongly felt by top-level managers. Indicators
should be better focused on actual priorities, budget management and allocation, and
responsiveness to political inputs (including also informal ones):

«This is an important aspect, relating to priorities. In my opinion, the prevailing
aspect is to ensure good budget management which is, by nature, a cross-functional
activity. Even more important than budget management is the degree of compliance
with political inputs that are not written in the stated objectives». (GD 2)

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 75

Most of the expectations of the managers moved to the PG are related to the decision-
making contents (5 out of 14) and the orientation of the planning and control systems (4
out of 14). The managers expressed the need for greater system flexibility and instrument
adaptability to enable the regional administration to face unexpected situations and new
challenges posed by external environments, perceived as increasingly discontinuous:

«Another key element is flexibility. Nowadays, strictness, accompanied by a fair
amount of flexibility, is essential, together with a strong willingness to change
tasks and perspectives». (GD 3)

Adaptation to goals should suit political priorities and contingent activities as much
as possible, and it should be carried out in a more timely and flexible way:

«The ability to understand where we stand is critical, so goal adjustment timeli-
ness and achievement measurements are very important. They should also enable
us, with the limitations I have represented, to be as close as possible to our
political priorities». (GD 3)

As to planning systems, most expectations focused on the importance of setting
targets in all the general directorates to improve the results of administrative action:

«Some targets should be cross-functional and they should involve all the general
directorates, or at least, the most important ones. Let me add the ability to promote – I
think this is an essential point – cross collaboration and cross-functionality». (GD 1)

The corporate model (NPM) dominates expectations about governance. This is
clearly stated in two verbatim where respondents discussed the need to map all existing
processes as a prerequisite to more virtuous organizational behavior:

«The other problem is networking: once we understand what our colleagues are
doing, we can identify redundancies and interactions. This is the right way to
improve in the future». (GD 3)

Discussion and Conclusions

This paper analyzes the current management models of public organizations, such as
the Italian Region of Tuscany, with a qualitative approach. Our findings have to be
cautiously interpreted due to research limitations. However, they provide a preliminary
portrayal of the current logics of public organizations. Figure 1 summarizes the main
results by describing the emerging logics for each actor and the documents:

(i) Documents and planning laws mostly embrace PG and NPM logics, as well as
political leadership, with a focus on expectations; (ii) the experience of top managers
highlights a prevalence of old public administration and partly NPM logics; (iii) GD
expectations are more focused on NPM than on PG. Finally, they do not seem to be

76 N.M. Iacovino et al.

completely aligned with those of top-level policy makers (as seen in the documents and
by the vice president’s interview).

The different points of view analyzed in our case study highlight two main results.

Hypothesis one: coexistence of different managerial logics in the same PA

Regarding the first hypothesis, we verified that OPA, NPM and PG backgrounds
coexist in the same context (in our case, the Tuscany Region) and at the same time
(2011). Evidence shows that different parts of the regional PA show a different
prevalence of each managerial logic: that is, an OPA background for the experience
of top management, a NPM background for policy makers and top management
expectations, and a strong PG background found in documents, acts and regional laws.
Although Italy has quite a long OPA tradition, this case study of the Tuscany Region
shows elements of a transition to innovative public management logics. Nonetheless,
the adaptability of a regional PA to the NPM model seems to be quite difficult for both
top-level managers and policy makers. Even if the responsibilities of the regional
institution are designed as decentralized and managerialized (the General Directorates
in the regional administration work as an independent organization with a budget
system), this form of organization is still perceived as too bureaucratic and lacking
intra-organizational management and cross-functional focus – two typical NPM fea-
tures (Osborne 2006). The Regional PA is still centered on policy implementation
rather than outputs or outcomes. Moreover, the focus of policy implementation is
Borganizationally distanced^ from the policy makers (Osborne 2006).

BHaving a lot of sectorial pillars or silos was seen as an obstructing solution of
cross-sectorial problems^ (Christensen 2012). Even if poor inter and intra-
organizational focus and vertical specialization are detected in the experience of policy
makers and top managers, horizontal specialization and network governance (both
features of PG logic) are considered a more important challenge than vertical special-
ization. The need to better coordinate a fragmented structure is a typical PG feature, but
the process of orienting a regional administration towards the outside world, i.e.
towards transparency and participation, is far from being accomplished.

Our results show, in accordance with Christensen (2012) and Olsen (2010), that
public administration could present mixed management logics and reforms: Bwe face a

Fig. 1 OPA, NPM and PG as a layering process

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 77

dialectical development in which OPA has been combined with NPM and post NPM (in
our case, PG) features to create new hybrid organizational forms^ (Christensen 2012).

Hypothesis two: a layering process of culture and reforms

Considering the second hypothesis, new reforms are added to old reforms in a
layering process, making the reform landscape more hybrid and complex. The
Bhybridity^ of these organizational forms is caused by a layering process, whereby
elements of the different models supplement or complement one another (Christensen
and Lægreid 2010; Streeck and Thelen 2005).

In our Tuscany Region case study, NPM or post-NPM reforms are introduced in a
culture where there are still prevailing OPA elements such as traditional bureaucratic
forms of specialization and coordination. The NPM reform wave, seen as a reaction to the
challenges and problems of the ‘old public administration’, and the post-NPM reform
wave, seen partly as a reaction to the negative effects of NPM, have become a complex
sedimentation or layering of structural and cultural features (Olsen 2009; Streeck and
Thelen 2005). In the course of this process (Røvik 1996), certain elements of structure and
culture have appeared relatively stable and coherent (i.e. the Brelevant dimension^
focused on the same values both in the experience of top managers experience and in
documents, see Tables 4 and 6), while others have become stronger or even institution-
alized (i.e. the Bplanning and control system^ dimension moving from OPA to PG logic,
see Tables 4, 5, and 6), and others have become weakened or deinstitutionalized (i.e. the
shift towards a PG logic on the Binternal relations^ dimension, see Tables 5 and 6). In our
case, the layering process is generated both by: i. The different experience of top-level
managers, policy makers and the values stated by regional acts and laws; ii. The
coexistence within the same dimension and the same perspective of the three different
managerial logics (see, for example, the BInternal relationships^ or BDecision making
contents^ dimensions for top managers highlighted in Table 6).

figure 1 shows the actual distance between: i. the potential diffusion of management
tools and culture (i.e. the expectations of top managers) and the expectations of policy
makers, which are closer to NPM logics; ii. Ban even wider distance^ between the mere
presence and the actual utilization of management tools (i.e. the experience of top
managers) and what is laid down in laws and documents (i.e. the perspective of acts and
laws). Ongaro and Valotti (2008) view this as an Bimplementation gap^. This could be
due to a resistance to change in Italy’s dominant culture (historically a politicized and
bureaucratic country), and, consequently, to weak organizational capabilities and poor
managerial skills (Valotti 2012), and to a lack of administrative support and innovative
tools. This result is also consistent with Panozzo’s claim (2000) that although reforms
in the Italian public sector tried to introduce managerial logics to the domains of
bureaucracy and formal compliance procedures, they were a product of the very culture
they were trying to change.

The main limits of our research are related to the use of the content analysis
methodology which can create biases due to the lack of independence and/or personal
prejudices of the people interviewed, the quantification metric used and the subjective
understanding of the issues by the researchers themselves. An ulterior limit may stem
from the fact that our research comprises a single-case study in a limited time, which
doesn’t allow us to generalize our results.

78 N.M. Iacovino et al.

Finally, further research is needed to carefully investigate this subject by
taking into account other variables, such as the individual characteristics of
managers, organizational features, and time periods, to better understand man-
agement dynamics.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank all their colleagues who collaborated on the research project,
Professor Andrea Piccaluga, Cristina Campanale, Emilio Passetti, Andrea Tenucci, and all the managers of the
Tuscany Region who were interviewed.

Appendix

Table 7 Regional documents and laws

Title and section analyzed
(in Italian)

Type of document Year of
approval

Year of
enforcement

Toscana 2015. Programma di governo per la IX
Legislatura →Section analyzed: 4.
Programmazione e governance della Regione
Toscana;5.1.10 Servizi pubblici locali; 5.1.11
Semplificazione amministrativa e rapporti con
gli Enti locali

Regional Government Program

2010 2010–2015

Presentazione del Programma della IX Legislatura
e della Giunta Regionale

Keynote speech of the President
to the Regional Legislative
Council

2010 2010–2015

Programma Regionale di Sviluppo 2011–2015.
Identità competitiva e sviluppo responsabile →
Section analyzed:PIS Semplificazione;
Evoluzione del modello di programmazione,
monitoraggio e controllo

Regional Development
Program (DRP)

2011 2011–2015

La Toscana in chiaro: bilancio sociale 2011
→Section analyzed: Presentazione del Presidente;

Presentazione dell’Assessore al Bilancio

Corporate Sustainability Report 2012 2011

Legge regionale 17 giugno 1992, n. 26, Prima
attuazione dell’art. 48 dello Statuto. (First
implementation of art. 48 of the Statute)

Regional Law 1992

Legge regionale 11 agosto 1999, n. 49, Norme in
materia di programmazione regionale (Regional
planning regulations)

Regional Law 1999

Legge regionale 2 agosto 2013, n. 44, Disposizioni
in materia di programmazione regionale
(Regional planning regulations)

Regional Law 2013

Legge regionale 27 dicembre 2007, n. 69, Norme
sulla promozione della partecipazione alla
elaborazione delle politiche regionali e locali.
(Law to promote participation in local and
regional policy-making)

Regional Law 2007

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 79

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distri-
bution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Badia, F. (2007). La Public Governance come governo delle relazioni fra diversi soggetti istituzionali su un
territorio. Il caso di un’agenzia di ambito territoriale ottimale. Azienda Pubblica, vol. 20, n. 4, ottobre –
dicembre, pp. 653–673.

Balk, W. L. (1996). Managerial reform and professional empowerment in the public service. Westport:
Quorum Books.

Barzelay, M. (1992). Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley:
University of

California Press.

Brignall, T.J.S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and manage-
ment in the ‘New Public Sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11 (3).

Capano, G. (2003). Administrative traditions and policy change: when policy paradigms matter: the case of
Italian administrative reform during the 1990s. Public Administration, 81(4), 781–801.

Cepiku, D. (2005). Governance: riferimento concettuale o ambiguità terminologica nei processi di
innovazione della PA? Azienda Pubblica, 1, 84–110.

Cepiku, D., Meneguzzo, M., & Senese, M. (2008). Innovations in public management and governance in
Italy. Roma: Aracne.

Christensen, T. (2010). Transcending new public management. Økonomi & Politik, 83(1), s 3–s 13.
Christensen, T. (2012). Post-NPM and changing public governance. Meiji Journal of Political Science and

Economics, 1.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2010). Increased complexity in public sector organizations – the challenges of

combining NPM and post-NPM. In P. Lægreid, & K. Verhoest (ed.), Governance of public sector
organizations: proliferation, autonomy and performance. Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 13. s 255–275.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration – theoretical and empirical
challenges. Public Organization Review, 11(4), s 407–s 423.

Cinquini, L., & Vainieri, M. (2008). Measuring primary care services performance: issues and opportunities
from a home care pilot experience in the Tuscan health system. Health Services Management Research,
21, 199–210.

Cinquini, L., Passetti, E., Tenucci, A., & Frey, M. (2012). Analyzing intellectual capital information in
sustainability reports: some empirical evidence. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(4), 531–561.

Considine, M. (1999). Markets and the new welfare state: employment assistance reforms in Australia.
Journal of Social Policy, 28(2), 183–203.

Considine, M. (2001). Enterprising states. The public management of welfare-to-work. Cambridge: University
Press.

Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. (2003). Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise? Comparing models of governance
in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 131–140.

De Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2013). Public sector reform: an overview of recent literature and research on NPM
and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1), 4–16.

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving not steering. Armonk: M.E.
Sharpe.

Di Filippo, E. (2005). I processi di cambiamento nella pubblica amministrazione italiana, http://www.unich.it/
unichieti/ShowBinary/BEA%20Repository/Area_Siti_federati/Scienze%20Sociali/Materiale_Didattico/
Materiale%20didattico%201112/7%20FAC%20SIMILE%20Tanese/3%20Tanese//file;jsessionid=
KzRwQ3BVh01hkv3Chlq354Q1Jz7ZmrxJ81VB482jpv6LhpSJStGX!1943790387!307808969.

Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in
organisation studies: research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organisational
Research Methods, 10(1), 5–8.

Ewalt, J. A. G. (2001). Theories of Governance and New Public Management: Links to understanding welfare
policy implementation, paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Conference of the American Society
for Public Administration, Newark, NJ.

80 N.M. Iacovino et al.

http://www.unich.it/unichieti/ShowBinary/BEA%20Repository/Area_Siti_federati/Scienze%20Sociali/Materiale_Didattico/Materiale%20didattico%201112/7%20FAC%20SIMILE%20Tanese/3%20Tanese//file;jsessionid=KzRwQ3BVh01hkv3Chlq354Q1Jz7ZmrxJ81VB482jpv6LhpSJStGX!1943790387!307808969

Fattore, G., Dubois, H. F. V., & Lapenta, A. (2012). Measuring new public management and governance in
political debate. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 218–227.

Flynn, N. (1993). Public sector management. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Frederic, T. (1998). NPA to NPM: thirty years of progress. Public Administration Times, 21, 1–2.
Galdiero, C. (2009). Il cambiamento istituzionale e la governance dei servizi pubblici: la ricomposizione del

campo sanitario italiano alla ricerca di una nuova compliance. In M. Martinez (Ed.), Cambiamento
organizzativo e compliance. Assunti teorici e ricerche empiriche. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.

Hinna, L. (2008). La misurazione dei risultati nell’ambito dei processi di programmazione, valutazione e
controllo delle amministrazioni pubbliche, in Quaderno Formez.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
ISTAT (2012). Annuario Statistico Italiano, Roma.
Kickert, W. J. M. (2001). Public management of hybrid organizations: governance of quasi-autonomous

executive agencies. International Public Management Journal, 4(2), 135–150.
Kooiman, J., & van Vliet, M. (1993). Governance and public management. In K. A. Eljassen & J. Kooiman

(Eds.), Managing public organizations: Lessons from contemporary European experience. London: Sage.
Marcuccio, M., & Steccolini, I. (2009). Patterns of voluntary extended performance reporting in Italian local

authorities. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(2).
Meneguzzo (2006). Creazione di valore e sviluppo del capitale sociale: la sfida per il sistema della PA italiana,

https://doc.rero.ch/record/22482/files/meneguzzo_RIREA_2006 .
Monteduro, F. (2005). La riforma delle amministrazioni pubbliche: Verso la Public Governance. In VV. AA.

Nuovi profili di accountability nelle PA: Teoria e strumenti. QUADERNI FORMEZ, vol. 40, ROMA:
Formez.

Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.
Mussari, R. (1997). La performance dei servizi pubblici: una sfida culturale, in Luca Anselmi (a cura di) Le

aziende degli enti locali tra indirizzo pubblico e mercato (pp. 261–283). Rimini: Maggioli.
Nuti, S., Seghieri, C., & Vainieri, M. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of a performance evaluation system

in the public health care sector: some novel evidence from the Tuscany Region experience. The Journal of
Management and Governance.

O’Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and managerial
implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66, 353–366.

Olsen, O. (2007). The ups and downs of bureaucratic organization. The Annual Review of Political Science,
11, 13–37.

Olsen, J. P. (2009). Change and continuity: an institutional approach to institutions of democratic government.
European Political Science Review, 1(1), 3–32.

Olsen, J. P. (2010). Governing through institution building. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ongaro, E. (2006). The dynamics of devolution processes in legalistic countries: organisational change in the

Italian public sector. Public Administration, 84(3), 737–770.
Ongaro, E., & Valotti, G. (2008). Public management reform in Italy: explaining the implementation gap.

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21 (2), pp.174–204.
Ongaro, E., Ferré, F., Galli, D., & Longo, F. (2013). Public sector reform in Italy: Views and Experiences from

Senior Executives. Country Report as part of the COCOPS Research Project. Coordination for Cohesion
in the Public Sector of the Future (COCOPS): www.cocops.eu.

Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.
Padovani, E., Manes Rossi, F., & Orelli, R.L. (2010). The use of financial indicators to determine financial

health of Italian municipalities, working paper.
Panozzo, F. (2000). Management by decree. Paradoxes in the reform of the Italian public sector. Scandinavian

Journal of Management, 16, 357–373.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford

University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis – new public

management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Press: Oxford Univ.
Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (2002). Research methodology for new public management. International

Public Management Journal, 5(1), 17–51.
Rotondo, F. (2011). Principi di public governance nei sistemi integrati di offerta turistica, Giappichelli.
Røvik, K.-A. (1996). Deinstitutionalization and the logic of fashion. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sev’on (Eds.),

Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sancino, A. (2010). L’applicazione del paradigma della Public governance negli enti locali: implicazioni per il

management, Economia Aziendale Online.

Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 81

https://doc.rero.ch/record/22482/files/meneguzzo_RIREA_2006

http://www.cocops.eu/

Shamsul Haque, M. (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66, 599–617.

Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional chanage in advanced political economies. In W.
Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Explorations in the dynamics of advanced political
economies (pp. 1–39). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ter Bogt, H. J. (2003). Performance evaluation styles in governmental organizations: How do professional
managers facilitate politicians’ work?. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 311–332.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vakkuri, J. (2010). Struggling with ambiguity: public managers as users of NPM-oriented management

instruments. Public Administration, 88, 999–1024. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01856.x.
Valotti, G. (2012). Public sector reforms: State of the art and future challenges. In Reforming the public sector.

Brookings Institutions Press.
Weber, M. (1922) 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkley, CA: U.

California Press.

Nicola Mario Iacovino is a PhD Student at the Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa,
Italy. His main current research topics are related to performance evaluation systems in public services.

Sara Barsanti PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of
Pisa, Italy. Her main current research topics are related to performance evaluation systems in public services.

Lino Cinquini is Professor of Management Accounting and Business Administration at the Institute of
Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa, Italy. His research areas include cost and performance
management and management control in public and private organizations.

82 N.M. Iacovino et al.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01856.x

Public…

Abstract
Introduction
Public Administration Models
Transitions Between OPA, NPM and PG
A Matrix for the Comparison of the Different Models
The Italian Context
Methodology
Results
The Strategic Orientation of the Region: The Perspective of Regional Acts and Laws
The Perspective of the Policy Maker
The Top-Level Management Perspective
Discussion and Conclusions
Appendix
References

638Public Administration Review • July | August 2016

Public Administration Review,

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12504.

Roderick A. W. Rhodes is profes-

sor of government at the University of

Southampton, United Kingdom. He is

life vice president of the Political Studies

Association of the United Kingdom; fellow

of the Academy of the Social Sciences in

Australia and the United Kingdom; and

recipient of the 2015 Lifetime Achievement

Award of the European Consortium

for Political Research. He is author or

editor of some 38 books, including, most

recently, The Routledge Handbook

of Interpretive Political Science (joint

editor, 2015) and Lessons in Governing:

A Profi le of Prime Ministers’ Chiefs of

Staff (coauthor, 2014).

E-mail: r.a.w.rhodes@soton.ac.uk

Abstract: Public sector reform has rarely dropped off the political agenda of Western governments, yet the old craft
skills of traditional public administration remain of paramount importance. Th e pendulum has swung too far toward
the new and the fashionable reforms associated with New Public Management and the New Public Governance. It
needs to swing back toward bureaucracy and the traditional skills of bureaucrats as part of the repertoire of govern-
ing. Th is article discusses the skills of counseling, stewardship, practical wisdom, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and
political nous. Although these skills are of wide relevance, the article focuses on their relevance in Australia, Britain,
Canada, and New Zealand. It concludes that the next bout of reforms needs to recover the traditional craft skills. It is
not a question of traditional skills versus the new skills of New Public Management or New Public Governance; it is a
question of what works, of what skills fi t in a particular context.

Practitioner Points
• We need to abandon the public service reform syndrome in which reform succeeds reform, with no time for

the intended changes to take place, no evaluation, and no clear evidence of either success or failure, and take
stock of where we have come from before embarking on another round of reform.

• Th e traditional craft skills of public administration remain relevant today because of the primacy of politics
in the work of top political-administrators.

• Th e craft skills include counseling, stewardship, prudence, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and political nous.
• It is not a question of traditional skills versus the skills of the New Public Management or the skills needed

to manage networks but of the right mix of skills for a specifi c context.

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration

Roderick A. W. Rhodes
University of Southampton, United Kingdom

For the past 40 years, many governments have had an obsessive concern with reforming the public service. We have seen a shift from the
New Public Management (NPM) to the New Public
Governance (NPG). Reform has succeeded reform,
with no time for the intended changes to take eff ect,
no evaluation, and no clear evidence of either success
or failure. Rather, we are left with the dilemmas cre-
ated by the overlapping residues of past reforms. So,
we need to take stock of where we have come from.
We need to look back to look forward. We need to
ask, what is the role of the public servant in the era of
NPM and NPG?

Westminster governments were enthusiastic reformers
of their public services. Indeed, they are all categorized
as “core NPM states” by Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011,
124). An important result of the reforms was to push
to one side the traditional craft skills of senior public
servants. Th ese skills, however, continue to have much
utility. We need to recognize that the old craft skills of
traditional public administration remain important.
Th e fi rst section of this article provides a baseline for

this discussion by describing the main characteristics
of traditional public administration and the reforms
associated with NPM and NPG. Th e next section
defi nes the craft. Th e following section discusses
the craft skills of counseling, stewardship, practical
wisdom, probity, judgment, diplomacy, and political
nous. Finally, the article discusses ways of systemati-
cally recovering craft skills and comments on the
wider relevance of the notion of craft.

It is not a central aim of this article to criticize either
NPM or NPG. It is not a question of traditional
skills versus the skills of New Public Management or
network governance. Rather, we need to strike a better
balance between the old and the new. It is a ques-
tion of what works, of which skills fi t in a particular
context. Th e pendulum has swung too far for too long
toward the new and the fashionable. It needs to swing
back toward bureaucracy and the traditional skills of
bureaucrats as part of the repertoire of governing.

Th is article focuses on public service reform in
Westminster governments, although its relevance is

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration 639

not limited to them. However, it is not possible to cover all Western
governments. Th is group of nations bear a strong family resem-
blance (Rhodes, Wanna, and Weller 2009, 9), and they were at the
heart of the reforms. Th ey are comparable. Th e phrase “civil or pub-
lic servant” refers to public sector employees of national government
departments. Th e phrase “Westminster” refers to Britain and the old
dominion countries of the British Commonwealth such as Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand. Westminster is a family of ideas includ-
ing responsible cabinet government, ministerial responsibility to
parliament, a professional nonpartisan public service, and the unity
of the executive and legislature. A professional, nonpartisan public
service is a central notion in any defi nition of Westminster (see, e.g.,
Rhodes, Wanna, and Weller 2009, 10, and citations).

Because the terminology varies among countries, the label “politi-
cians and public servants” has been standardized throughout the
article. I focus on senior politicians and public servants. In Britain,
the top offi cial is called the permanent secretary; in Australia, the
departmental secretary; and in Canada,
the deputy minister. For convenience and
simplicity, the short form “secretary” is used
throughout. Similarly, the term for the politi-
cian at the head of the department or agency
varies. Th e term “minister” is used through-
out. However, both ministers and secretaries
are interdependent with overlapping roles and
responsibilities, each role one side of the same
coin. So, following Heclo and Wildavsky
(1974, 2, 36), they are also referred to as
“political administrators” to stress their interdependence.

From Traditional Public Administration to the New
Public Governance
Table 1 summarizes the shift from traditional public administration
to the New Public Management to the latest wave of reform, the
New Public Governance.

Traditional Public Administration
We turned our backs on traditional public administration; it was
seen as the problem, not the solution. Of course, the bureaucra-
cies of yesteryear had their faults, and the reformers had a case (see,
e.g., Osborne and Gaebler 1992; Pollitt 1993). For example, in
Britain, the Fulton Committee inaugurated the era of reform with
its diagnoses that the civil service “is still fundamentally the product
of the nineteenth-century” and that the “structure and practices of
the Service have not kept up with the changing tasks” (1968, 9).

Most notoriously, it claimed that “the Service is still essentially based
on the philosophy of the amateur (or ‘generalist’ or ‘all-rounder’)
and that this “cult is obsolete at all levels and in all parts of the
Service” (1968, 11). Margaret Th atcher subscribed to this view
(Hennessy 1989, part IV). Yet the defi ning characteristics of tradi-
tional public administration are not red tape, cost, and ineffi ciency.
Rather, the phrase refers to classic bureaucrats working in a hierar-
chy of authority and conserving the state tradition. In table 1, their
task is to provide policy advice for their political masters and oversee
the implementation of the politician’s decision. Politicians, political
staff ers, and even some public servants continue to hold important
misconceptions about the past of our public services. Th ey forget
that bureaucracy persists because it provides “consistent, stable
administration,” “equity in processes,” “expertise,” and “accountabil-
ity” (Meier and Hill 2005, 67; see also Goodsell 2004).

According to a former head of the British Home Civil Service, Sir
Edward Bridges, the generalist has four “skills or qualities.” First,

he or she must have “long experience of a
particular fi eld.” Second, the individual must
have the specialized skills or arts of the admin-
istrator, for example, spotting “the strong
and weak points in any situation.” Th ird, the
civil servant should “study diffi cult subjects
intensively and objectively, with the same dis-
interested desire to fi nd the truth at all costs.”
Finally, the civil servant must “combine the
capacity for taking a somewhat coldly judicial
attitude with the warmer qualities essential to

managing large numbers of staff ” (Bridges 1950, 50, 52, 55–57).
Turning to more recent times, Simon James, a former civil servant,
summarizes the required skills as “the capacity to absorb detail at
speed, to analyze the unfamiliar problem at short notice, to clarify
and summarize it, to present options and consequences lucidly, and
to tender sound advice in precise and clear papers” (1992, 26; see
also Wilson 2003). Traditional public administration continues to
be characterized as an art and a craft as much as it is a science, and
public servants are generalists—that is, a profession based on craft
knowledge.

The New Public Management
Th e past 40 years have seen three waves of NPM reforms (for a more
detailed account, see Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011, chap. 1; Rhodes
2011, 23–33). As seen in table 1, the fi rst wave of NPM was mana-
gerialism or hands-on professional management, explicit standards
and measures of performance, managing by results, and value for

Table 1 Public Administration, New Public Management, and New Public Governance Compared

Paradigm/Key
Elements Theoretical Roots State Tradition Unit of Analysis Key Focus

Resource Allocation
Mechanism Core Beliefs

Public administration Political science and
public policy

Unitary/federal Political-administrative
system

Policy advice and
implementation

Hierarchy Public sector ethos

New Public
Management

Rational choice theory
and management
studies

Regulatory Organization Management of
organizational resources
and performance

Markets Effi ciency, competition,
and the market

New Public
Governance

New Institutionalism and
network theory

Differentiated Network Negotiation of values,
meanings, and
relationships

Networks Trust and reciprocity

Sources: Compiled from Osborne (2010) and Rhodes (1998). For a similar table showing that this analysis is relevant to the United States, see Bryson, Crosby,
and Bloomberg (2014).

Traditional public administra-
tion continues to be character-

ized as an art and a craft as
much as it is a science, and

public servants are generalists—
that is, a profession based on

craft knowledge.

640 Public Administration Review • July | August 2016

money. Th at was only the beginning. In the second wave, govern-
ments embraced marketization or neoliberal beliefs about competition
and markets. It introduced ideas about restructuring the incentive
structures of public service provision through contracting out and
quasi markets. Th e third wave of NPM focused on service delivery
and citizen choice. Nothing has gone away. We have geological strata
of reforms. Th us, Hood and Lodge suggest that we have created a
“civil service reform syndrome” in which “initiatives come and go,
overlap and ignore each other, leaving behind residues of varying size
and style” (2007, 59). As one secretary said, “the inoculation theory
of reform does not work—you are not immune after one bout.”
Although the extent of the reforms varies from country to country,
and the Westminster countries were among the most enthusiastic,
public service reform is ubiquitous. Pollitt and Bouckaert conclude
that NPM “has become a key element in many … countries. It has
internationalized. . . . In short, it has arrived” (2011, 9).

What are the implications for public servants of NPM reform?
Th e search for better management remains at the forefront of civil
service reform, and better management means the practices of the
private sector. Two examples out of the embarrassing number avail-
able will be enough. Th e U.K. coalition government’s Civil Service
Reform Plan focused on skills and competencies. Th e focus was on
management—for example, “the Civil Service needs staff with com-
missioning and contracting skills; and project management capa-
bilities need a serious upgrade” (Her Majesty’s Government 2012,
9). Australia had the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian
Government Administration (2010) and the Leadership and Core
Skills Strategy and Integrated Leadership System (APSC 2014). In
both countries, leadership is often invoked and refers to managing
government departments.

Th is obsession with NPM has had adverse eff ects on traditional
skills. For example, Pollitt (2008, 173) gives his recipe for losing
institutional memory: rotate staff rapidly, change the information
technology often, restructure every two years, reward management
over other skills, and adopt each new management fad. All three
departments in Rhodes’s (2011, chap. 7) study of British govern-
ment met most of these criteria. He found poor record keeping, the
annual postings of the best staff , and high staff turnover. Add inter-
nal reorganizations, managerial reform, and especially the successive
waves of the delivery agenda, and it can be no surprise that ministers
complained about the loss of memory. And ministers come and go,
rarely lasting more than two years. From her observational fi eldwork
in the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aff airs,
Wilkinson concludes that corporate memory is the preserve of the
bureaucracy; without it, “policymakers lose
the knowledge of their constitutional context,
departmental history, and awareness of which
policies have succeeded and failed in the past”
(2009, 14).

Th e nearer reform gets to the political sphere,
the vaguer the discussion. Th us, better policy
making boils down to a call for greater
“contestability” in policy advice—that is, for
advice from competing sources. Under the
label “what works,” the government seeks
more evidence-based policy making (Her

Majesty’s Government 2012, chap. 2). It does not discuss the respec-
tive roles of secretaries and ministers. When the Civil Service Plan
report touches on the tasks of political-administrators, it can strike
a politically naive tone. Th us, upon implementation, it suggests that
ministers, who will be in offi ce for two years or less, will delay a
policy announcement while it is thought through and civil serv-
ants are retrained (2012, 18). Th e comment “implausible” springs
to one’s lips unbidden. It is all too easy to hear the impatience in
the minister’s voice. Indeed, NPM has not had much eff ect on the
behavior of ministers. Pollitt and Bouckaert conclude that “there is
an absence of convincing evidence” (2011, 180–81).

The New Public Governance (NPG)
In table 1, managing networks is at the heart of NPG. For example,
both the Dutch school (Kickert, Klijn, and Koppenjan 1997) and
the Anglo-governance school (Rhodes 1997b) posit a shift from
hands-on to hands-off steering by the state. Hands-off steering refers
to working with and through networks or webs of organizations to
achieve shared policy objectives. It involves continuously negotiating
beliefs and exchanging of resources within agreed rules of the game
(see also Koliba, Meek, and Zia 2011, 60; Torfi ng et al. 2012, 14).

Th e fi rst point to note is that whereas NPM inspired a vast array
of management reforms, NPG inspired relatively few reforms in
Westminster government. Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011, 198–99,
212) see joining up—integrated service provision through better
horizontal and vertical coordination—as one of the main themes
of reform. It has “grown in prominence internationally since the
turn of the century” (see, e.g., Cabinet Offi ce 1999; Management
Advisory Committee 2004).

What does NPG say about the role of the public service? What
are the new skills? Torfi ng et al. suggest that the traditional role of
the public servants is “supplemented” (not replaced) by that of a
“meta-governor managing and facilitating interactive governance”
(2012, 156–59, chap. 7). Th eir task is to “balance autonomy of
networks with hands-on intervention.” Th ey have various specifi c
ways of carrying out this balancing act. Th ey can “campaign for a
policy, deploy policy narratives, act as boundary spanners, and form
alliance with politicians.” Th ey become “meta-governors” manag-
ing the mix of bureaucracy, markets, and networks (see also Koliba,
Meek, and Zia 2011, xxxii, chap. 8). Th e meta-governing public
servant has to master some specifi c skills for managing networks.
Th ey include integrating agendas; representing both the agency and
the network; setting broad rules of the game that leave local action
to network members; developing clear roles, expectations, and

responsibilities for all players; agreeing on the
criteria of success; and sharing the administra-
tive burden (see also Agranoff 2007; Denhardt
and Denhardt 2000; Goldsmith and Eggers
2004; Goldsmith and Kettl 2009; Klijn and
Koppenjan 2016; Rhodes 2006).

Th e neutral, competent servants of the politi-
cal executive must now master the skills for
managing the complex, nonroutine issues,
policies, and relationships in networks—that
is, meta-governing, boundary spanning,
and collaborative

leadership.

Th e task is to

Th e neutral, competent serv-
ants of the political executive
must now master the skills for
managing the complex, non-
routine issues, policies, and

relationships in networks—that
is, meta-governing, boundary
spanning, and collaborative

leadership.

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration 641

manage the mix of bureaucracy, markets, and networks (Rhodes
1997a). Th e public service needs these new skills, but it is a step
too far to talk of these new skills requiring “a full blown cultural
transformation” (Goldsmith and Eggers 2004, 178). Indeed, part
of the problem is this call for transformative cultural change. As
Sir Arthur Tange, former secretary of the Australian Department
of Defense, commented, the reformers “demolished or at least
fractured the symmetry of the Westminster model” (1982, 2).
However, they did not replace it with “a coherent structure of ideas
to be a guiding light for loyalties and behavioral proprieties in the
Federal Public Service.”

Recovering the Craft
Recovering the craft skills is important because reform has been
only partially successful. Pollitt and Bouckaert describe the results of
reform as a “half empty wineglass” (2011, 155) because we do not
have the data about effi ciency or outcomes. Reforms have been only
partially successful because they have ignored
the central role of the minister in running the
department. Critics who blame the public
service for the slow pace of change should
look instead to ministers. Th ey are the main
wellspring of change in government, and they
are not interested in public service reform.
In the eyes of both ministers and secretaries,
the job of ministers was not transformed by either NPM or NPG.
Th ey continue to live in a world of blurred accountability. As one
secretary commented, “the current arrangements are fraught with
ambiguities—and remember this suits both sides.” Ministers and
top public servants are political-administrators dependent on one
another if they are to succeed. Public servants recognize both the
dependence and the critical role of ministers. One secretary sug-
gested that “clarifying the role of ministers and offi cials is the major
unresolved constitutional question” (cited in Lodge and Rogers
2006, ix, 63).

Ministers undermine civil service reform in two main ways. First,
they lack the political will to drive reform. Politicians make bold
statements but often are unsure about what changes they want.
When they do propose change, they move on to other policy con-
cerns all too quickly. Also, as Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011, 169–70)
point out, politicians are reluctant to stick with the roles allocated
to them by the reforms. It defeats the object of the exercise if, after
decentralizing authority to bureaucrats, the minister intervenes
when something goes wrong. Yet ministers can resist neither the
temptation nor sometimes the political imperative to interfere.
Public service reform is also a symbolic policy. Everybody loves
bashing the bureaucracy. It appears to be decisive action. But eff ec-
tive organizational change is a long slog, and the next election is
always looming.

Second, management is not a core ministerial skill. If you imagine
yourself in a minister’s or a secretary’s shoes, performance manage-
ment does not matter much—useful, but not where the real action
is. As Sir Frank Cooper, former permanent secretary in the British
Ministry of Defense, observed with characteristic vigor, the minis-
ter-as-manager is “nonsense” because “it’s not what they went into
politics for” (cited in Hennessy 1989, 609; see also Rhodes 2011,
88–90, 292–93).

Indeed, ministers can actively handicap reform. As one secretary
complained, “I have been trying to build up management [but
it] was just sort of knocked out of the way by the politician.” In a
diplomatic vein, Pollitt and Bouckaert conclude, any reform that
“assigns a new role to politicians is at risk of being embarrassed by
their lack of cooperation” (2011, 174).

Th e third and most fundamental factor is that the reforms do not
“fi t” the political environment at the top of a government depart-
ment. Th e minister lives in a cocoon of willed ordinariness that
exists to protect the minister. Private offi ces, staff ers, and top public
servants exist to tame trouble, defuse problems, and take the emo-
tion out of a crisis. It was ever thus (see, e.g., Crossman 1975, 618).
Protocols are the key to managing this pressurized existence. All
are involved in an exercise in willed ordinariness. Th e slow pace of
NPM reform is not because public servants are ill trained, stupid,
or venal, or because of a lack of political will, or because ministers

cannot resist intervening. It is because such
private sector management techniques often
do not fi t this political context. Reforms are
neutered by both bureaucratic and party
political games. Such games are compounded
by the demands of political accountability
and the media spotlight, which pick up
relatively trivial problems of implementation

and threaten the minister’s career. Th e old craft skills focus more
on managing the minister’s political environment than on service
delivery—hence their continued relevance.

Th e confusions and ambiguities at the heart of public service
reform are all too obvious in a recent public disagreement between
the government and the public service in Britain. Francis Maude,
minister for the Cabinet Offi ce responsible for the civil service,
publicly criticized an internal civil service document setting out the
job description for a secretary. Th e document stated that secretaries
need to balance “the needs and demands of Ministers and high-
level stakeholders within Whitehall and externally with stewardship
of their Department and its customers.” Maude claimed that this
statement was “without constitutional propriety” and that the civil
service should focus on “the priorities of the government of the day.”
According to the BBC, the document “enraged cabinet ministers”
because it contained the statement that the secretary “tolerates high
levels of ambiguity and uncertainty and rapid change—and at times
irrational political demands.” Lord Butler of Brockwell, former head
of the Home Civil Service, considered the document accurate and
observed that “Th ere is nothing there that I wouldn’t have put down
in black and white.”1 What is clear is that agreement on either the
stewardship role of the civil service or on the proper relationship
between ministers and public servants remains elusive. Revisiting
the old arts would seem timely.

The Craft Skills
Th e old craft skills remain essential because they focus on minis-
ters—on meeting and managing their political needs. It was a hard
lesson for one secretary who was not a career civil servant. It was the
fi rst time he had worked with a national politician, and it involved
“a steep learning curve.” His position was “uncomfortable,” and his
“credibility was knocked with the department” because he spent the
fi rst year “getting up to speed on the political-management side of

Critics who blame the public
service for the slow pace of

change should look instead to
ministers.

642 Public Administration Review • July | August 2016

the job.” In sum, “what I hadn’t understood at that point and which
I understand much better now is (a) the [minister] and (b) the
political perspective.” He had to learn the craft skills and give the
minister what he wanted.

But phrases such as “craft knowledge,” “generalist public servant,”
and “profession” skate over the surface of their skills. What is their
craft knowledge? If the focus is on the craft, then we need to explore
what public administrators do in their specifi c context—on how
things work around here. So, we need to systematize their experi-
ence and practice.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a craft is a skill, an
occupation, or a profession requiring special skill or knowledge. Th at
is only the beginning when seeking to understand the term. To call
something a craft rather than a science is to accept the importance
of experiential knowledge as well as formal knowledge. Th e craft is
learned on the job. A craft involves passing on practical beliefs and
practices from generation to generation. In contrast to a science, a
craft has no one best way. In contrast to an art, it has utility. Th e craft
is learned from a “master,” and the novitiate moves from apprentice
to journeyman to master. Commonly, a profession—or, historically, a
guild—controls membership and regulates knowledge and practices.
Much of that knowledge is tacit. It has not been systematized. It is
complex. Often, it is secret. In this way, the practitioners of the craft
can control the supply and demand for their skills.

In seeking to identify the “traditional” skills, the researcher cannot
consult a defi ning text or defi nitive survey of these skills, which
depend on both individual talents and the context in which they
are exercised. Indeed, existing lists of skills are about which skills
the public servant ought to have in the era of NPM, not descrip-
tions of the skills that public servants deploy in their everyday lives.
So, the analysis is based on the skills most commonly discussed in
the existing literature, especially on the refl ections of practitioners
and research monographs reporting interviews with practition-
ers.2 Whenever possible, the analysis is also illustrated with the
words of the political-administrators at the head of departments of
state. As with the example at the beginning of this section, most
of these quotes in this article are drawn from a database of some
140 interviews with ministers, public servants, and political staff –
ers conducted with my colleague Anne Tiernan since 2002 (and
continuing).

Counseling
Traditional public servants have been described as “mandarins.”
Th eir skill lies not “in administering policy
but in making it” because of their professional
experience, judgment, and independence (du
Gay 2009, 360). Th eir allegiance is to the
state rather than exclusively to the governing
party, and they provide a check on the parti-
san actions of ministers. Th eir characteristics include “party political
neutrality,” “frank and fearless advice,” “integrity and propriety in
the conduct of offi cial business,” and accepting “the obligations of
confi dentiality, security and anonymity” (du Gay 2009, 365).

Political-administrators act as a counterweight to partisan inter-

ests and arguments.

Here lies a dilemma: when making a minister

aware of the problems with a policy, counselors court the danger
of appearing to usurp power. Th ey could be seen as putting their
conception of the state before that of the minister; they take it on
themselves to determine the public interest. For some commenta-
tors, that is the role of the public servant. Fesler argues that the
public interest is “for administrators what objectivity is for scholars”
(1990, 91). So, the political-administrator is guardian of the public
interest.

Th e claim poses some intractable questions. Why should they be the
arbiters of what is in the public interest? What is the basis of their
claim to act authoritatively? Is it legitimate? Are they accountable?
Th e call for political responsiveness by politicians in Australia sprang
from a determination to end the reign of an imperial public service
that took too much on itself. In the United Kingdom, it brought
the categorical assertion that the interests of the government of the
day were the public interest (Armstrong 1985). In both of these
countries, and elsewhere, the public interest is seen as the preserve
of democratically elected and accountable politicians, not unelected
administrators, with public servants in a hierarchical relationship to
their political masters.

Scholars have proposed normative models to resolve this dilemma
(see, e.g., Denhardt and Denhardt 2000; Wamsley et al. 1990),
but such eff orts court the danger of missing the point. Th e point is
the dilemma—that is, speaking truth to power, with all its atten-
dant tensions. Th e public servant’s task is not to defi ne the public
interest. Th e task is to challenge. Th e skill is forensic interrogation
or “snag spotting.” Th e grounds for interrogation are continuity
of experience and institutional memory. Ministers will bridle at
such challenges, but that does not mean they are illegitimate, only
unwelcome. Th e tension is the point. After all, 9 times out of 10,
the minister will win.

Stewardship
Historically, bureaucrats in Westminster government were servants
of power, not transformative leaders (Burns 1978). Rather, the task
of secretaries is to apply top-down authority; they are cogs in the
machine. But with NPM came the idea of entrepreneurial leader-
ship—of public servants who sought out ways to improve their
organization’s performance and sold those ideas to their various
stakeholders. Th us, Doig and Hargrove (1987) seek to reclaim the
bureaucrat as leader by identifying 12 individuals in high-level
executive positions in American government who were entrepre-
neurial or transformative leaders—that is, they had innovative ideas
and put them into practice.

Terry (1995) sees the heroic or transformative
model of leadership with the “great man” radi-
cally changing the organization and disdaining
its existing traditions as a threat to “institu-
tional integrity.” An institution has integrity

when “it is faithful to the functions, values, and distinctive set of
unifying principles that defi ne its special competence and character”
(Terry 1995, 44). Th e task of administrative leaders is to preserve
this institutional integrity—that is, to conserve the institution’s mis-
sion. Th ey must balance the autonomy necessary to uphold integrity
with responsibility to elected politicians. Administrative leaders
practice “administrative conservatorship” or stewardship (Watt

Political-administrators act as a
counterweight to partisan inter-

ests and arguments.

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration 643

2012, 9). Th e practices of stewardship are “a form of statesmanship,”
which “requires professional expertise, political skill, and a sophis-
ticated understanding of what it means to be an active participant
in governance.” Or, to employ an everyday simile, public leadership
is like “gardening,” needing time, patience, experience, and politi-
cal awareness. Th ey are “quiet leaders” who are in the job “for the
long haul.” Th ey are about continuity, learning from the past, and
preserving institutional memory (Frederickson and Matkin 2007,
36–38). Indeed, much government is about coping, the appearance
of rule, and keeping everything going (Rhodes 2011); it is about
stewardship.

Secretaries in Australia have heeded this particular call. Th e Advisory
Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration in its
report Ahead of the Game identifi ed stewardship as an important
role for departmental secretaries. Th ey saw it as necessary “to ensure
that the APS [Australian Public Service] has the capacity to serve
successive governments.” (2010, 5). Also, it preserved “less tangible
factors” such as “the trust placed in the APS and building a culture
of innovation and integrity in policy advice.”3

Practical Wisdom
Goodsell unpacks the notion of “practical wisdom” (1992, 247).
He considers public administration “the execution of an applied
or practical art.” It is concerned with helping practitioners fi nd the
right “tool.” Public servants must become masters of their craft; that
is, they become experts. Th ey acquire this mastery through practi-
cal learning, which recognizes “traditional craft knowledge is not
systematically codifi ed and written down. It is known informally,
passed on verbally to apprentices and jour-
neymen over time.” Th rough this mastery
and practical learning, public servants build
a sense of identity; an esprit de corps—the
French phrase encapsulates more than the
prosaic English equivalents of “loyalty” and
“morale.” Finally, this identity breeds pride in
one’s work and a willingness to accept respon-
sibility for it (adapted from Goodsell 1992,
247–48; see also Waldo 1968).

Mandarins do not just provide specifi c policy advice, although, of
course, they do provide such advice. Th ey provide what a former
head of the Home Civil Service, Lord Bridges, called “a kind of rare-
fi ed common sense” based on the “slow accretion and accumulation
of experience” (1950, 50–51). Th is collective or institutional mem-
ory refers to the organized, selective retelling of the past to make
sense of the present. Secretaries explain past practice and events to
justify recommendations for the future (see also Wass 1984, 49–50).
Th ey draw on this memory to spot hidden or unexpected prob-
lems—snags. Th ey may irritate ministers, who see it as a delaying
tactic. But it is integral to the forensic examination of policy propos-
als. And politicians recognize its importance, even if, at times,
belatedly. For example, the Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd,
when refl ecting on his torrid experience in offi ce, also thought that
he should have paid more attention to “institutional wisdom.”

Of course, there are limits to learning from experience and to rely-
ing on institutional memory. As March concludes, “learning from
experience is an imperfect instrument for fi nding truth” (2010,

114). It is ambiguous, constructed and contested. Yet practical
wisdom, and the memory and experience on which it is based, lies
at the core of the craft of the political-administrator.

Probity
When Kane and Patapan (2006, 713, 719) talk of the Aristotelean
moral virtues that are relevant for public administration, they item-
ize courage, temperance, generosity, magnanimity, mildness, humor,
truthfulness, moderation, and wisdom. Harold Nicolson (1950,
126), a former British diplomat, took for granted the virtues of
intelligence, knowledge, discernment, hospitality, charm, industry,
courage, and tact. Th e U.K. Civil Service’s code highlights the four
values of integrity, honesty, objectivity, and impartiality.4 All have
in common the idea that public servants should have the quality of
possessing strong moral principles, that is, probity. Th e lists vary in
length and emphasis but honesty, decency, and loyalty are always
there. When a colleague revealed secret information, one secretary
thought it was “unbelievable” that a man in a “tremendous position
of trust” working with the minister had “betrayed” the minister and
his civil service colleagues.

Judgment
Th e ability to make considered decisions is close to practical wis-
dom, but under this heading, I want to explore a distinctive notion:
“appreciation.” Introduced by Sir Geoff rey Vickers in 1965, the
idea was a pioneering contribution to the role of sense making in
organizations (see also Weick 1995). For Vickers, appreciation is
the web or net of reality concepts and value concepts that we use to
make sense of the observed world and how we communicate in that

world. Appreciation is about the mental maps
we use to make our way in the world.

Departments have shared mental maps. Th ey
are a storehouse of knowledge and experi-
ence of what worked and what aroused public
criticism. Th is departmental philosophy can
be understood as an appreciative system; it is
the net of beliefs about reality through which

public servants understand their world. Th e inherited traditions of
the organization and the storytelling that hands down that tradition
to new arrivals form this

departmental philosophy.

It is a form of
folk psychology. It provides the everyday theory and shared language
for storytelling. It is the collective memory of the department: a
retelling of yesterday to make sense of today (see Rhodes 2011,
chap. 9).

A craft involves judgment based on practical wisdom because sci-
ence cannot provide the answers, and the art of judgment lies in
weighing the merits of competing stories and spotting the snags.
Indeed, these skills can be seen as the public servants’ distinctive
contribution to the analysis of policy.

Diplomacy
Nicholson defi nes diplomacy as “the management of international
aff airs by negotiation” (1950, 15, 116–20). He also identifi es seven
diplomatic virtues: truthfulness, precision, calm, good temper,
patience, modesty, and loyalty (to the government one serves).
For all its slightly quaint air, Nicholson identifi es an important
skill. Diplomacy may be an old-fashioned word, but the arts of

Th e inherited traditions of the
organization and the storytell-
ing that hands down that tradi-
tion to new arrivals form this

departmental philosophy.

644 Public Administration Review • July | August 2016

negotiation and persuasion remain current. We have several every-
day expressions to cover this skill. We talk about sitting in the other
person’s chair, standing in the other person’s shoes, and looking
at the world through other peoples’ eyes. As Sir Douglas Wass (a for-
mer head of the British Civil Service) said, “fi nesse and diplomacy
are an essential ingredient in public service” (cited in Hennessy
1989, 150). Diplomacy, with its focus on spanning boundaries and
facilitating interaction, is an old art in a new context; the skills of
diplomacy lie at the heart of NPG. When NPG talks of boundary
spanning and collaborative leadership, it is talking about diplomacy
in twenty-fi rst-century guise.

Political Nous
Political nous refers to astuteness in understanding and negotiat-
ing the political lay of the land. “Public administrators need to be
‘crafty,’ to fulfi l their responsibilities”; they need guile and cunning
(Berkley and Rouse 2009, 18). Th ey practice “politics” with a small
“p.” Th e dark arts of politics are not the sole preserve of the elected
politician (see Meltsner 1990). Th e secretaries may be neutral
between political parties, but they are not neutral either in the
service of their department or their minister. Both are territorial. As
one secretary reported, “Th e Minister stands over my desk and says,
‘I want you ring up [your civil servant counterpart],’ and say, ‘I want
you to pass a message to [your Minister] which is ‘get your tanks off
my lawn.’”

Top public servants talk about their “political antennae” (Rhodes
2011, 121). Th ey express frustration when they have ministers less
skillful than themselves: “you develop a feel for the political” and
“you get frustrated” when you see “how … people who’ve had a life-
time of this profession … make such a mess of
the politics.”

Th ey have a wide view of politics. Th ey do not
mean party politics and the party caucus. Th ey
may be unable to resist gossiping about such
matters, but they do not take part. Rather,
“politics” refers to the politics of public
administration, the core executive, parliament, and the media. All
political-administrators must defend their minister and their depart-
ment in parliament. Th ey must ask, “What will this look like on
the front page of Th e Daily Telegraph?” Th e art is coping. Th e aim is
survival: still being here.

Learning from experience is at the heart of practical wisdom, and
it is how public servants pick up their political nous. Th e point
is appreciated in theory by a former Australian prime minister
who saw public service experience as the “ideal” training and
preparation for the job of his chief of staff (Howard 2001). Yet in
Australia, fewer and fewer public servants have experience in the
Prime Minister’s Offi ce. Departments no longer have staff with
experience of working in the networks at the heart of government.
Conversely, these core networks lack knowledge about departments.
Historically, rotations in ministerial and prime ministerial offi ces
were an essential developmental pathway for offi cials and a source
of practical wisdom for politicians (Barberis 1996). All core execu-
tives have opportunities for aspirants for the top jobs to learn from
experience and to be socialized into the rules of the political game.
Increasingly, they do not take the opportunity (Rhodes and Tiernan

2014). Nonetheless, political nous remains a core part of a political-
administrator’s craft.

Conclusions: It’s the Mix of Old and New That Matters
NPM and NPG have introduced valuable reforms. It would be
foolish to favor the waste of public money. Better management
that seeks to improve economy, effi ciency, and eff ectiveness is like
mom or apple pie: everyone agrees it is good, so it is it is hard to
criticize. Network governance needs new skills in managing the
mix of bureaucracy, markets, and networks. Such meta-governing
involves policy narratives, boundary spanning, and collaborative
leadership. But in adopting these new skills, we must not forget that
traditional skills remain essential and need protecting, for example,
institutional memory. Traditional, NPM, and NPG skills all remain
relevant. It is not a question of traditional skills versus NPM and
NPG. It is a question of what works, of what skills fi t in a particular
context. Th is conclusion recaps the main argument, discusses ways
of systematically recovering craft skills, and comments on the wider
relevance of the notion of craft.

Why do we need a preservation order on the public service? Why
are the traditional skills important? To court the danger of over-
simplifi cation, management and markets are the priority for NPM,
while delivering services to citizens is the priority for NPG. For
the traditional craft, the priority is politics. As noted earlier, in
Westminster governments, ministers are not managers. Th at is not
why they went into politics. Only a minority take an interest. Th is
simple brute fact undermines reform. At best, it is not a priority. At
worst, it is not even on the radar as both confront a world of high
risk and 24/7 media coverage that dominates their everyday lives.

Th ey live in a closed world of overlapping
roles and responsibilities. Th e distinctions
between policy and management, politician
and public servant are meaningless when
confronted by the imperative to cope and sur-
vive. Political-administrators are dependent
on one another to carry out their respective
roles, each role one side of the same coin. For

example, Andrew Podger (2009, 10), former secretary for health and
aged care in Australia, spent 40 percent of his time supporting the
minister. Every rude surprise shows their dependence. Genufl ecting
to the opening narration of the television series, political-adminis-
trators live in Th e Twilight Zone: “the middle ground between light
and shadow … and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the
summit of his knowledge.” When they have a cooperative working
partnership, it is also “the dimension of imagination”: the wellspring
of policy innovation in the department. But whether their relation-
ship is good or bad, reform of the public service demands clarity not
only about the role of the secretary but also of the minister.

Th e craft persists. In the 1950s, Sir Edward Bridges wrote that it
was “the duty of the civil servant to give his Minister the fullest
benefi t of the storehouse of departmental experience and to let the
waves of the practical philosophy wash against ideas put forward
by his ministerial masters.” In the 2000s, the head of the Australian
public service insisted that “we have something unique to off er”
and itemized the capacity to stand apart from vested interests and
focus on the national interest and experience about what works
(Watt 2012, 5). Th e quotes span 60 years, yet both public servants

Learning from experience is at
the heart of practical wisdom,
and it is how public servants
pick up their political nous.

Recovering the Craft of Public Administration 645

share a distinct and distinctive craft. Despite the many challenges
posed by the various waves of “reform,” their profession continues
to off er counseling, stewardship, practical wisdom, probity, judg-
ment, diplomacy, and political nous. Such remarks can be dismissed
either as apologia for yesteryear or as special pleading by the public
service. No matter, they are still describing the craft of public serv-
ants. What we need now is a more systematic account of those craft
skills drawing on current experiences, not, as here, the fragmentary
historical record.

How do we fi nd out what we do not know about the craft of the
public administrator? Ethnographic fi eldwork is well suited to this
task (Rhodes 2015). It asks the simple questions “how do things
work around here?” and “how do you do your job?” Participant
observation is the best method for answering these questions,
but a combination of ethnographic interviews and focus groups
would tease out the tacit knowledge characteristics of all crafts.
Th us, the focus groups could comprise recently retired secretaries,
and the group interaction would produce the data (see Agar and
MacDonald 1995; Rhodes and Tiernan 2014). Th e skills identifi ed
in this article could provide the background and the starting point.
Of particular value would be public servants’ commentary on one
another’s insights, experiences, and opinions about their craft. If
former ministers could also be persuaded to participate in their own
focus group, the contrast between the two would be instructive.

Although the main task is to map the traditional skills, it is not
the only task. Th e mix of skills is also important. Th is raises sev-
eral issues. First, reducing the craft of the public servant to seven
skills oversimplifi es. Th is article separates the skills for ease of exposi-
tion. In practice, they are warp and weft. Where does diplomacy end
and judgment begin? How do you counsel a minister without calling
on your political nous? Th e task is not just to document the skills but
also to explore how they are woven together in specifi c contexts.

Also, we need to explore the relationship between the craft skills and
NPM and NPG. Can the craft skills help in “managing the mix”
of traditional, managerial, and networking skills? As noted earlier,
the reforms have both intended and unintended consequences.
NPG provides a new context for diplomatic skills, whereas NPM
erodes institutional memory. Moreover, all may not be as it seems
on fi rst inspection. It may not be the role of secretaries to manage
any network. Rather, as the heads of central agencies, they manage
a group of networks—a “multi-network portfolio” (Ysa and Esteve
2013). As the repository of institutional memory and its stewards,
the public service can coordinate the portfolio. No minister will
have a map of the department’s networks or stay long enough to
master such detail.

Th e most important skill of all is the ability to choose between and
manage the mix of skills, whether traditional, NPM, or NPG. At
the heart of public servants’ craft is the ability to learn from experi-
ence and alter the mix of skills to fi t both the specifi c context in
which they work and the person for whom they work. Th e tradi-
tional skills of bureaucrats need to be part of public servants’ train-
ing, and of the repertoire of governing (Goodsell 2004).

Th is article focused on Westminster governments because the world
was too broad a remit. But the traditional craft is not confi ned to

Westminster governments. Th e label “generalist” is not specifi c to
them. Th us, Heclo (1977, 2–3) talks about the “craft knowledge”
of the high-ranking Washington bureaucrats: about “understand-
ing acquired by learning on the job,” not through specialist train-
ing. Goodsell (1992, 247) describes American public servants as
“artisans,” or masters of “an applied or practical art.” So, the idea of
the craft has the potential to travel well. Th e fi nal research question
is how well and how far it travels.

Th e bureaucracies of yesteryear were not a golden era, but they
had some virtues. Th ey were home to statesmen, albeit statesmen
in disguise. Given that we so love dichotomies such as steering
not rowing, it is now time for new one. NPM and NPG are about
the low politics of implementation, and the craft is about the high
politics of serving the minister. We have had an era of thinking
small. It is time to think big again and return to the craft—to
statecraft.

Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this article were presented as keynote
addresses at the International Political Science Association World
Congress, Montreal, July 19–24, 2014, and the Institute of
Public Administration Australia International Conference, Perth
Convention and Exhibition Centre, October 30, 2014. I would like
to thank James Perry (Indiana University) and the journal’s anony-
mous referees, Gerry Stoker (University of Southampton), Anne
Tiernan (Griffi th University), and Pat Weller (Griffi th University),
for comments on the various drafts.

Notes
1. See “Indicators of Potential for Permanent Secretaries.” Th e document was

produced by YSC, business psychology consultants, for the U.K. Cabinet Offi ce,
available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_07_14_perma-
nentsecretary (accessed November 10, 2015). Th e comments by Maude
and Butler can be found in “Francis Maude Attacks Civil Service over Job
Document,” BBC News, July 7, 2014, available at http://www.bbc.com/
news/uk-politics-28202293 (accessed November 10, 2015). Th ese debates are
common to most Westminster systems. For a comparative review, see Rhodes,
Wanna, and Weller (2009).

2. See, for example, Barberis (1996); Bridges (1950); Butler (1992); Campbell
and Halligan (1992); Campbell and Wilson (1995); Lodge and Rogers (2006);
Podger (2009); Rhodes (2011); Savoie (2003); Shergold (2004); Wanna,
Vincent, and Podger (2012); Wass (1984); Watt (2012); and Wilson (2003).

3. On Australia, see the Public Service Act 1999. On the United Kingdom, see the
Civil Service Code, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
civil-service-code (accessed November 10, 2015).

4. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code
(accessed November 10, 2015). On the values of the APS see: http://www.apsc.
gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/aps-values-and-code-of-
conduct-in-practice (accessed November 10, 2015).

References
Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration. 2010. Ahead

of the Game: Blueprint for Reform of Australian Government Administration.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Agar, Michael, and James MacDonald. 1995. Focus Groups and Ethnography.
Human Organization 54(1): 78–86.

Agranoff , Robert. 2007. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public
Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

646 Public Administration Review • July | August 2016

Armstrong, Sir Robert. 1985. Th e Duties and Responsibilities of Civil Servants in
Relation to Ministers. http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/1996_Armstrong_
Memorandum [accessed November 14, 2015].

Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). 2014. APS Leadership and Core
Skills Strategy: 2014–15. http://www.apsc.gov.au/learn-and-develop/ aps-
leadership-and-core-skills-strategy-2014-15-refresh. [accessed November 14,
2015].

Barberis, Peter. 1996. Th e Elite of the Elite: Permanent Secretaries in the British Higher
Civil Service. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Berkley, George E., and John Rouse. 2009. Th e Craft of Public Administration. 10th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bridges, Sir Edward. 1950. Portrait of a Profession. In Style in Administration, edited
by Richard A. Chapman and Andrew Dunsire, 44–60. London: Allen and
Unwin, 1971.

Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. Public Value
Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New
Public Management. Public Administration Review 74(4): 445–56.

Burns, James MacGregor. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Butler, Sir Robin. 1992. Managing the New Public Services: Towards a New

Framework? Public Policy and Administration 7(3): 1–14.
Cabinet Offi ce (United Kingdom). 1999. Modernising Government. London: Her

Majesty’s Stationary Offi ce. Cm 4310.
Campbell, Colin, and John Halligan. 1992. Political Leadership in an Age of

Constraint: Bureaucratic Politics under Hawke and Keating. St Leonard’s,
Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Campbell, Colin, and Graeme Wilson. 1995. Th e End of Whitehall: Death of a
Paradigm. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Crossman, Richard. 1975. Th e Diaries of a Cabinet Minister. Vol. 1, Minister of
Housing. London: Jonathan Cape.

Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2000. Th e New Public Service: Serving
Rather than Steering. Public Administration Review 60(6): 549–59.

———. 2015. Th e New Public Service Revisited. Public Administration Review
75(5): 664–72.

Doig, Jameson W., and Erwin C. Hargrove, eds. 1987. Leadership and Innovation:
A Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.

du Gay, Paul. 2009. In Defense of Mandarins: Recovering the “Core Business” of
Public Management. Management and Organizational History 4(4): 359–84.

Fesler, James. 1990. Th e State and Its Study: Th e Whole and the Parts. In Public
Administration: Th e State of the Discipline, edited by Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron
Wildavsky, 84–97. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Frederickson, H. George, and David Matkin. 2007. Public Leadership as Gardening.
In Transforming Public Leadership for the 21st Century, edited by Ricardo S.
Morse, Terry F. Buss, and C. Morgan Kinghorn, 34–45. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.

Fulton Committee (Committee on the Home Civil Service). 1968. Report of the
Committee on the Home Civil Service 1966–1968. London: Her Majesty’s
Stationary Offi ce. Cmnd 3638.

Goldsmith, Stephen, and William D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: Th e New
Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Goldsmith, Stephen, and Donald F. Kettl. 2009. Unlocking the Power of Networks:
Keys to High-Performance Government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.

Goodsell, Charles. T. 1992. Th e Public Administrator as Artisan. Public
Administration Review 52(3): 246–53.

———. 2004. Th e Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. 4th ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Heclo, Hugh. 1977. A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution

Heclo, Hugh, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1974. Th e Private Government of Public Money:
Community and Policy inside British Politics. London: Macmillan.

Hennessy, Peter. 1989. Whitehall. London: Secker & Warburg.
Her Majesty’s Government. 2012. Th e Civil Service Reform Plan. http://www.

civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Civil-Service-Reform-Plan-acc-
fi nal [accessed November 14, 2015].

Hood, Christopher, and Martin Lodge. 2007. Civil Service Reform Syndrome—Are
We Heading for a Cure? Transformation, Spring, 58–59. http://www.christo-
pherhood.net/pdfs/15576-T5%20PROOF2%201 [accessed November 14,
2015].

Howard, John. 2001. Oration: Centenary of the APS. Speech at the Centenary
Conference of the Institute of Public Administration Australia, Canberra, June
19. http://australianpolitics.com/2001/06/19/aps-speech-john-howard.html
[accessed November 14, 2015].

James, Simon. 1992. British Cabinet Government. London: Routledge.
Kane, John, and Haig Patapan. 2006. In Search of Prudence: Th e Hidden Problem of

Managerial Reform. Public Administration Review 66(5): 711–24.
Kickert, Walter J. M., Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M. Koppenjan, eds. 1997.

Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage
Publications.

Klijn, Erik-Hans, and Joop Koppenjan. 2016. Governance Networks in the Public
Sector. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Koliba, Christopher, Jack W. Meek, and Asim Zia. 2011. Governance Networks in
Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Lodge, Guy, and Ben Rogers. 2006. Whitehall’s Black Box: Accountability and
Performance in the Senior Civil Service. London: Institute for Public Policy
Research.

Management Advisory Committee. 2004. Connecting Government: Whole of
Government Response to Australia’s Priority Challenges. Canberra: Australian Public
Service Commission.

March, James G. 2010. Th e Ambiguities of Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Gregory C. Hill. 2005. Bureaucracy in the Twenty-First
Century. In Th e Oxford Handbook of Public Management, edited by Ewan Ferlie,
Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., and Christopher Pollitt, 51–71. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Meltsner, Arnold J. 1990. Rules for Rulers: Th e Politics of Advice. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

Nicholson, Harold. 1950. Diplomacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the

Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, Stephen P. 2010. Th e New Public Governance: A Suitable Case for
Treatment. In Th e New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on the Th eory
and Practice of Public Governance, edited by Stephen P. Osborne, 1–16. London:
Routledge.

Podger, Andrew. 2009. Th e Role of Departmental Secretaries: Personal Refl ections on the
Breadth of Responsibilities Today. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Pollitt, Christopher. 1993. Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural
Change in the 1990s? 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

———. 2008. Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.

Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform. A
Comparative Analysis: New Public Management, Governance and Th e Neo-
Weberian State. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W. 1997a. From Marketisation to Diplomacy: “It’s the Mix Th at
Matters.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 56(2): 40–53.

———. 1997b. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Refl exivity,
and Accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Back to the Future? 647

———. 1998. Diff erent Roads to Unfamiliar Places: U.K. Experience in
Comparative Perspective. Australian Journal of Public Administration 57(4):
19–31.

———. 2006. Th e Sour Laws of Network Governance. In Fighting Crime Together:
Th e Challenges of Policing and Security Networks, edited by Jenny Fleming and
Jennifer Wood, 15–34. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales
Press.

———. 2011. Everyday Life in British Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

———. 2015. Ethnography. In Th e Routledge Handbook of Interpretive Political
Science, edited by Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes, 171–85. Abingdon: Oxon:
Routledge.

Rhodes, R. A. W., and Anne Tiernan. 2014. Lessons in Governing: A Profi le of Prime
Ministers’ Chiefs of Staff . Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W., John Wanna, and Patrick Weller. 2009. Comparing Westminster.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Savoie, Donald A. 2003. Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers and
Parliament. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Shergold, Peter. 2004. Once Was Camelot in Canberra? Refl ections on Public
Service Leadership. Sir Roland Wilson Lecture, Australian National University,
Canberra, June 23. http://srwfoundation.anu.edu.au/public-lecture-
series/2004-2/ [accessed November 14, 2015].

Tange, Sir Arthur. 1982. Th e Focus of Reform in Commonwealth Government
Administration. Australian Journal of Public Administration 41(1): 1–14.

Terry, Larry D. 1995. Leadership of Public Bureaucracies: Th e Administrator as
Conservator. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Torfi ng, Jacob, B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre, and Eva Sørensen. 2012. Interactive
Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Vickers, Sir Geoff rey. 1965. Th e Art of Judgement. Centenary ed. London: Sage
Publications, 1995.

Waldo, Dwight. 1968. Scope and Th eory of Public Administration. In Th eory and
Practice of Public Administration: Scope, Objectives, and Methods, edited by James
Clyde Charlesworth, 1–26. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences.

Wamsley, Gary, Robert N. Bacher, Charles T. Goodsell, Philip S. Kronenberg, John
A. Rohr, Camilla M. Stivers, Orion F. White, and James Wolf. 1990. Refounding
Public Administration. London: Sage Publications.

Wanna, John, Sam Vincent, and Andrew Podger, eds. 2012. With the Benefi t of
Hindsight: Valedictory Refl ections from Departmental Secretaries, 2004–2011.
Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Wass, Sir Douglas. 1984. Th e Government and the Governed. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.

Watt, Ian. 2012. Refl ections on My First Year as Secretary of the Department of
the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Th oughts on the Future. Address to
the Institute of Public Administration Australia, ACT Division, Great Hall,
Parliament House, October 5.

Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Wilkinson, Katy. 2009. Heroes and Villains in the Bureaucracy: Interpreting Policy

Making in DEFRA. Paper presented at the 59th Political Studies Association
Annual Conference, University of Manchester, April 7–9.

Wilson, Sir Richard. 2003. Portrait of a Profession Revisited. Public Administration
81(2): 365–78.

Ysa, Tamyko, and Marc Esteve. 2013. Networks Never Walk Alone: Th e Governance
of Network Portfolios. Paper presented to the Global Governance Club,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Science,
Wassenaar, Th e Netherlands, May 29–June 1.

Public Management Research Association

Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive Public Administration
Author(s): Thomas A. Bryer
Source: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 17, No. 3
(Jul., 2007), pp. 479-500
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25096332
Accessed: 09-09-2017 00:34 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Public Management Research Association, Oxford University Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory: J-PART

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

JPART 17:479-500

Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive
Public Administration
Thomas A Bryer
University of Southern California

ABSTRACT

The relevance of the concept “bureaucratic responsiveness” has been questioned in recent
years. One reason for the questioned relevance is the apparent environmental changes that

are occurring in public administration. Globalization and devolution have infiltrated the halls
of bureaucracies. Public agencies are being asked to collaborate with actors in other sectors
of society, including, and especially, citizens and citizen associations. In addition to these
environmental changes, administrators are being confronted with potentially competing
ethical obligations that make decisions regarding responsiveness challenging. This article
uses these evolving environments and competing ethical obligations to formulate a set of six
variants of bureaucratic responsiveness: dictated, constrained, purposive, entrepreneurial,
collaborative, and negotiated. It is argued that to be relevant, writers and researchers in
public administration need to consider each of these variants and how they potentially
collide with each other to shape administrator thought and behavior, particularly in the
collaborative context. In conclusion, it is suggested that calls for the abandonment of
“responsiveness” as a central concept in public administration are premature, and emerging
research questions are offered.

INTRODUCTION

Public administration is at crossroads. Once dominated by a technical-rational culture,
public administration is now traveling three not necessarily compatible paths: technical
rational, entrepreneurial, and citizen participatory. Stivers (2001) has characterized the
crossroads as nothing short of a battle for the heart and soul of public administration.
Adding to the tension at the crossroads is the evolving context in which administrators
are working, which is increasingly one that is networked bureaucratic (O’Toole 1997).
The implications of public administration’s current multiplicity include the existence of
multiple environments for public administrators, potentially conflicting obligations for
performance and behavior, and, as a result, choices regarding responsiveness.

To be relevant in these changing environments, represented by the evolution of public
administration, and conflicting obligations, represented by the crossroads, writing and
research needs to be based on certain relevance criteria. Public administration scholarship

The author thanks three anonymous reviewers for detailed and useful feedback. Additionally, thanks are given to Terry
Cooper, Jack Meek, Patricia Nickel, and Feng Wang who reviewed early drafts of the article. Address correspondence
to the author at bryer@usc.edu.

doi:10.1093/jopart/mul010
Advance Access publication on August 29, 2006
? The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

480 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

ought to be based on past research to be relevant to scholarship (Whetten 1989), while the
contribution should be related to “social and organizational reality” (La Porte 1971, 18).

More specifically, it is suggested that scholarship should be sensitive, reflexive, historically
driven, and future looking. It ought to be aligned with current environmental enactments of
administrators as well as desired future enactments, and it should actively acknowledge
ethical dilemmas administrators face and are likely to face in the conflicting and evolving
demands and environments to which they need to respond.

Relevance of responsiveness research and writing to the scholarly and practitioner
communities, it is argued, should begin by unpacking the concept of “bureaucratic re
sponsiveness.” A single, unifying conceptual construct fails to meet the requirements of
relevant writing, namely, it does not capture the conflicts that arise as bureaucrats are faced
with responsiveness in different variations. Unpacking the concept into six variants?dic
tated, constrained, purposive, entrepreneurial, collaborative, and negotiated?enables the
researcher to better understand, inform, and enhance responsiveness in any given context.

Ultimately, the purpose of this article is to define emerging research questions and
establish a research agenda to better understand and enable a responsive public adminis
tration in the context of changing environments with potentially conflicting obligations. By
unpacking the concept of responsiveness and tracing its history through a literature review,
it becomes clear how responsiveness as a concept was relevant in the past and remains
relevant today. Through the explicit association of responsiveness variants to different
ethical perspectives, this article builds on a path developed by Maesschalck (2004), who
traces periods in administrative reform, such as traditional public administration, new
public management, and new public service, in terms of their impact on administrators’
ethics. In so doing it becomes clear how ethical obligations based on assumptions of
different administrative reform efforts can conflict if taken together, as is potentially the
case in much of today’s public administration. Though Maesschalck’s conceptualization
has not been empirically verified, conceptually it is a foundation from which competing
obligations’ impact on administrator behavior can be considered.

This article also follows paths created by scholars seeking to create categories to better
understand and analyze various efforts and movements in public administration. Specifi
cally this article finds parallels with the work of Kaufman (1956), Light (1997), and recent
work by McGinn and Patterson (2005). Kaufman examines the historical development of
public administration through the lens of three potentially competing and desired values:
representativeness, neutral competence, and executive leadership. He concludes that the
history of public administration is a story of a shifting balance between these values, rather
than displacement, which is a similar conclusion to that reached in this article.

Light (1997) explores four tides of administrative reform that capture the essence of
the multitude of legislative and executive reform efforts. He concludes through his rich
historical review that there has been too much reform, much of it conflicting, to make much

meaningful difference in the achievements of government. Similarity is found in this
article’s conclusion that future research should consider all variations or categories of
responsiveness, rather than to hold each variant separately in the evolving administrative
environment.

An affinity exists with McGinn and Patterson (2005) not in their substance but in their
purpose. Their aim in considering the state of gender and feminism in public administra
tion “is not to offer a chronology of progression, or a complaint of retrogression, as much
as a conceptual guide to the ideas in use” (930). Their focus, much like the focus here, is on

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 481

the content of existing literature in public administration and related fields, which are used
to substantiate and actively assess the six variants of responsiveness offered.

This article continues by unpacking the concept of responsiveness, which will serve as
the basis for examining its relevance as a concept and the relevance of public administra
tion writers to the scholarly and practitioner communities. The first part of the article, as
such, establishes the framework based on the conflicting ethical obligations and environ

mental enactments that give rise to the six responsiveness variants. Following this, a review
of representative literature on responsiveness is undertaken to see where there are gaps
based on the framework established, answering the question: How has research and writing
on responsiveness been relevant? Finally, an agenda for research and writing that is
relevant to both the scholarly and practitioner communities is offered in conclusion.

ENVIRONMENTAL ENACTMENTS, ETHICS, AND RESPONSIVENESS

Public organizations, perhaps more than private organizations, must deal with multiple
stakeholders and potentially conflicting demands (Kanter and Brinkerhoff 1981). How they
balance the demands of multiple stakeholders will have consequences for their activities,
outcomes, and the degree of trust in them by the public. The ways in which public agencies
balance the needs and demands of stakeholders is a study in responsiveness.

The enacted environment of the administrator defines possible stakeholders to whom
a response can and should be made. Enacted environments are based on past experience
and interpretation. The process of enactment is a sense-making process (Weick 1995),
whereby administrators will seek to categorize and label different components of the
environment. By categorizing and labeling stakeholders, classes of stakeholders, pro
cesses, and demands, administrators can make the environment more simple (Ashforth
and Mael 1989; Ashforth and Humphrey 1995, 1997) and less complex (Boisot and Child
1999) while potentially losing some sight of important distinctions between and within
categories (Yanow 2003). For example, Yanow (2003) observes how categories created
and legitimized through the census process and through other social evaluation programs
allow researchers and administrators to distinguish between different groups in society.
However, such distinctions, particularly when used to inform policy making and admin
istrative decision making, mask the extensive variety within categories.

Environments can be enacted as described above, but they can also be controlled to
a large extent by dominant actors in organizations or by what Child (1972, 1997) describes
as the dominant coalition. Organizational structures, cultures, and performance pressures
can restrict the ways in which organization members enact their environment. That is,
the choices of action and thought can be restricted so as to ensure rational action within
constraints, which is the essence of the view that humans are boundedly rational (March
and Simon 1993; Simon 1997).

Three ethical perspectives?control centered, discretionary, and deliberative (Adams
and Balfour 2004)?leave administrators with potentially competing ethical obligations,
determined in part by the nature of the environments each administrator enacts and in
which each administrator exists. Control-centered ethics is based on control through reg
ulation, codes of conduct, and a quest for transparency (Adams and Balfour 2004). The
assumption is that administrators cannot be trusted to act in a manner consistent with
political masters or for the public good without imposed mechanisms of control (Finer
1941; McCubbins, Noll, and Weingast 1987).

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

482 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

On the other side is discretionary ethics. If discretion is afforded to administrators to
enact their own environment without overabundance of regulation and restriction, the
ethical climate is not one of mistrust but rather of confidence in one’s ability to choose
right from wrong, professional or public interests over private interest. The assumption
is that if labels and categories are created, they are based on standards consistent with
professional norms (Miller 2000), internal standards of conduct (Friedrich 1940), and in
Weber’s terms, sine ira ac studio (without bias or scorn) (Adams and Balfour 2004, 149).

Once discretion is granted, however, there exist potentially competing ethical claims
that seek to shape the role and prescribe the behavior of administrators. Frederickson
(1971, 1990) offers equity, or justice, as an appropriate orientation for public administra
tors. Cooper (1991) offers citizenship behavior as the appropriate dominant ethical orien
tation. Administrators in this view are citizens who are employees of other citizens,
and they need to treat that responsibility as first among all others. Though not necessarily
conflicting, these perspectives pose responsiveness options or options for how to enact
environments through responsive actions and interpretation of those actions. For instance,
public administrators need to determine who is suffering injustice or who the appropriate
publics are for participation in citizenship activities.

Existing on a different plane is deliberative ethics. Along with the control-centered
and discretionary ethical obligations, Adams and Balfour (2004) offer that attention needs
to be given not only to perspectives that focus on autonomous individuals as the center of
ethical decision making but also to ethics at a collective level. These are rooted in the work
of Maclntyre, as Stewart (1991) describes and operationalized for public administration by
Cooper (1987). Obligations and internal goods are socially constructed and aim to achieve
excellence. As Adams and Balfour (2004) describe, building a community develops public
life and public ethics concurrently. Ethics are based in deliberation.

The relevance of bureaucratic responsiveness is questioned in recent literature largely
due to the changing environments that are described here. An example of the questioned
relevance is seen in the work by Stivers (1994), who observes that responsiveness main
tains a negative connotation in that it assumes bias by an administrator toward one stake
holder or position rather than another. To be responsive to one stakeholder is to potentially
be unresponsive to another. Stivers (1994) offers an alternative based in democratic values
that centers on a “listening bureaucrat.” Reinterpreting responsiveness in this manner is
a useful exercise to conceive of a desired future state of public administration. A second
example is found in the work of Vigoda (2002) who focuses specifically on the increasing
collaborative environment of public agencies. He suggests replacing the concept of
“responsiveness” with that of “collaboration.”

Public administration scholars do need to be relevant and, as suggested by Stivers and
Vigoda, need to change in order to maintain relevance. Relevance needs to be maintained
both for fellow scholars and users of research and writing on public administration. Rec
ognizing the multifaceted character of responsiveness in terms of multiple administrative
environments and ethical obligations can ensure the current and future relevance not only
of the concept but also of the scholarly community’s place in theorizing about and
researching the concept.

Recognizing the multifaceted character of responsiveness is accomplished here
through the identification of six variants of responsiveness. These variants are derived
from the three potentially competing ethical perspectives and are substantiated through
a review of literature on responsiveness.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 483

Specifically, each ethical perspective can be associated with the six variants of re
sponsiveness introduced below in the following manner: control-centered ethics apply to
dictated and constrained responsiveness; discretionary ethics apply to purposive and
entrepreneurial responsiveness; deliberative ethics apply to collaborative responsiveness;
lastly, all ethical perspectives apply to negotiated responsiveness, as will be discussed.
Figure 1 displays the association made between the six responsiveness variants and three
ethical perspectives, along with examples that will be discussed in the course of the article.

Control-Centered Ethics?Dictated and

Constrained Responsiveness

Control-centered ethics assume restricted decision making; the ability for administrators to
interpret and act upon their environment freely is constrained by rules, regulations, orga
nizational cultures, and leadership and authority structures. As such, this ethical perspec
tive is associated with responsiveness behaviors that are dictated and constrained.

Dictated Responsiveness
Dictated responsiveness is the extent to which elected officials and other professional
overseers of the bureaucracy direct the character of administrative thought and action.
This variant of responsiveness can come in the form of direct order, explicit or implicit
pressure, or charismatic or coercive influence from the political “masters” or democrati
cally elected overseers of the bureaucracy. Historically, dictated responsiveness in the
United States can trace back to the spoils system instituted with President Andrew Jackson
and “perfected” through corruption with President Ulysses Grant. With the assassination
of President James Garfield by a disgruntled office seeker, the spoils system came crashing
down.

In efforts to depoliticize the bureaucracy and create a technical-rational system for
administering the will of politicians, Progressive reformers established a merit-based civil
service system. Created by the Pendleton Act of 1883, the civil service system sought
a clear distinction between those people who served in elected office and those individuals
who administered the laws. To the victors went the spoils no more.

Early writing on the split between politics and administration considered the dichot
omy not only ideal for efficient government but also possible to achieve (Wilson 1887;
Goodnow 1900). The dictated responsiveness in this way came to be de facto dictated.
There was an expectation and anticipation that bureaucrats, unelected and hired based not
on their political loyalties, would nonetheless, faithfully administer the laws passed by
elected officials.

At the same time as there was an expectation of faithful administration of the laws, it
became clear to later writers on the dichotomy that immunity from direct political in
fluence afforded to administrators a certain amount of discretion in the extent to which

laws are faithfully administered. Waldo (1948) was perhaps the most influential in ques
tioning the orthodoxy, observing how the state is an administrative state, where bureaucrats
are the center of policy making and implementation.

From the spoils system, to meritocracy, to the administrative state, the administrators’
environment shifted significantly. The form that political influence took varied, from di
rect, to de facto, and today, political influence takes on new forms. Bureaucrats cannot be
fired for political reasons; de facto dictated responsiveness has lost its purity. Yet, the
possibility for bureaucrats to be responsive to the dictates of politicians is real.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

4*
00

Figure 1
Variants of Responsiveness and Associated Ethical Perspectives, with

Examples

Ethical
Perspective

Control-Centered

Responsiveness
Variant Dictated Constrained

Discretionary Deliberative

Purposive Entrepreneurial Collaborative Negotiated

Description

Examples

Responses to
elected officials

Legislative
hardwiring;
executive
appointments

Responses to
rules, norms,
procedures

Administrative
procedures;
technical-rational
culture;
professional
norms

Responses to
administrator
defined goals

Equity, justice
or citizenship
goals;
representative
bureaucracy;
active
representation

Responses to
individuals

Customer
orientation;
customer
satisfaction

Responses to
stakeholder
consensus

Generative
approach to
policymaking;
Learning and
Design Forum;
collaborative
learning

Responses to
multiple,
conflicting
demands

Negotiated
rulemaking; all
previous
examples

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 485

Constrained Responsiveness
Constrained responsiveness is the extent to which administrative thought and action is
restricted and shaped by bureaucratic rules, norms, structures, or cultures. This variant of
responsiveness arises from technical or rules-based constraints, professional norms and
values that shape behavior, and the nature of humans as boundedly rational. Constrained
technocratic responsiveness is set in an environment that has at its core a set of processes
and rules. Motivated by a desire for efficiency and standard application of rules, bureau
crats seek to ensure that responsiveness does not stray from what is permissible under the
established guidelines. This idea was discussed above as a de facto dictated responsive
ness, as it is the elected officials who oftentimes craft the rules that bind behavior. Policy
makers can hardwire agencies in order to ensure that the intent of a law is met over time,
even when the policy maker is no longer in office (Moe 1997).

Structural and rules-based considerations of responsiveness are based in neoinstitu
tional political science, in which it is theorized that rules shape behavior and individuals
shape the rules that constrain them to act in certain ways (Scott 2001). Hardwiring of
agencies, for instance, can be meant to make bureaucracies efficient and to enable in
dividual bureaucrats to make rational decisions about how to respond to a particular
request or situation within constraints established by the rules (March 1978; March and
Simon 1993; Simon 1997).

Rules and procedures can take on a meaning of their own, once they have become
institutionalized. As in category making, to simplify one’s environment, the original intent
or meaning of rules can be forgotten, but their use persists, largely due to the efficiency
benefits of following rules and the control over one’s environment that is maintained in
demanding that rules be followed. The need for legitimacy and control is particularly
important for institutional actors who act as owners or proprietors or who are otherwise
dominant actors in an environment (Schlager and Ostrom 1992). Seen in this light, bu
reaucratic inertia, or the lack of change in response to different circumstances, is a conse
quence of environmental selection forces such as need for control, rather than a cause of
such forces (Hannan and Freeman 1984).

Ethically, administrators are at once constrained by rules and procedures and re
sponsive to the same rules and procedures. With such constraint, it is a fair question
as to whether or not ethics is even an issue (Thompson 1985). An ethical decision is one
where an individual chooses to do right or wrong, and if wrong, how much wrong for a
given good. The former choice?right or wrong?is a deontological question. The latter
choice?how much wrong for a given good?is a ideological question. The ideological
question is a matter of dirty hands, in which an individual enacts or chooses to do wrong in
order to achieve a greater good. Adams and Balfour (2004) consider these issues in terms of
administrative evil, which is rooted in modernity and technical-rational culture. This cul
ture programs behavior and masks the ways in which individual behaviors lead to some
times horrific outcomes, as in the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia
disasters.

Discretionary Ethics?Purposive and

Entrepreneurial Responsiveness

Prior to this point, the nature of responsiveness and ethical obligations discussed centered
on the relationship between administrators and their political masters or administrators and
the agencies in which they work. Beginning effectively in the late 1960s and early 1970s,

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

486 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

there was recognition that there was more than an amorphous clientele or single public who
received benefits and services from government. There was recognition that responsiveness
does not mean neutral and equal implementation of laws for all people in the same way.

As such, the appropriate ethical lens applied to administrator behavior is not neces
sarily control-centered ethics but rather discretionary ethics. Administrators have discre
tion to choose right or wrong, and they are challenged to decide ethical and behavioral
questions where what is more good than something else is not easily discernible. Discre
tionary ethics is thus the appropriate perspective to associate with purposive and entrepre
neurial responsiveness.

Purposive Responsiveness
Purposive responsiveness is the extent to which administrators think and act based upon
their own uniquely developed set of professional or public goals. This variant of respon
siveness is based on the goals of a collective of administrators or individual administrators
to achieve a good for a population or constituency they feel deserves service. However,
differential treatment needs to be based, from this view, on a desire to provide more
services and meet a greater need of a given group of people, not on a desire to deny
services to a needy group of people based on preconceived notions (i.e., categories and
labels) of the extent to which they deserve services and benefits. For instance, consider the
case of immigrants who are in need of services: “Public servants could not ethically
implement a policy that was overtly detrimental to the well-being of any segment of the
population. It would be unethical, for example, to cooperate with cutting off disability
benefits to legal immigrants, many of whom are elderly and are likely to wind up mal
nourished and/or homeless. Such a policy amounts to defining this group as a surplus
population, and an ethical public service cannot be complicit in that sort of public policy”
(Adams and Balfour 2004, 162).

The New Public Administration (Marini 1971) formed the basis of this way of think
ing, with an ultimate goal of equity. Frederickson (1971, 1990) defines equity as differ
ential forms of equality based on blocks or segments of society. That is, all low-income
individuals need to be treated differently than other income segments. Similarly, blocks
and segments can be based on ethnic or racial minorities of certain income levels. Admin
istrators may also have an obligation to future generations (Frederickson 1994). In terms of
responsiveness, then, administrators need to be responsive to the overall objective of
a socially just society where goods and services are equitably distributed based on need.

Purposive responsiveness is also reflected in representative bureaucracy literature
(Dolan and Rosenbloom 2003). Here it is thought, though not empirically verified unam
biguously, that administrators who are demographically representative of the larger pop
ulation will act in such a way as to achieve greater ends for population segments in need.

Entrepreneurial Responsiveness
Whereas purposive responsiveness is based on recognition of different needs of groups of
people, entrepreneurial responsiveness seeks responsiveness to individuals as customers
of government. This variant of responsiveness is the extent to which administrators act
and think according to the needs and demands of their identified customers. Based on an
environment dominated by concepts borrowed from the private sector and fixed to public
sector activities, this variant of responsiveness is individualized and flexible in terms of how
rules and structures constrain behavior. Administrators in this environment are encouraged

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 487

to take risks; they are empowered to do what is necessary to empower customers to get what
they want from government (Frederickson 1996).

The ideas of New Public Management entered practice in the United States through
popular books on reinventing government (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), through federal
reinvention efforts, as seen in the National Performance Review, and through various
state and local government efforts to apply private sector principles to the public sector
(Andrisani, Hakim, and Leeds 2000). For example, Giuliani (2000) discusses the effect
competition had on New York City’s transportation department services. By inviting
administrators to compete with private sector providers, administrators were able to push
themselves to do more work of higher quality with fewer resources. Such competitive
pressure is a central tenant of reinvention and quality improvement in government.

Perhaps more central to New Public Management is the idea of responsiveness to the
customers of government. Customer orientation drives the thought and action of govern
ment reformers who seek to make government as responsive to their customers as private
companies are to theirs (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Vigoda-Gadot (2003, 36) defines
New Public Management as the “religion” and responsiveness as the “law” in this context.

Deliberative Ethics?Collaborative Responsiveness

Collaborative responsiveness is the extent to which administrators are open to new ways of
thinking and behaving and to which they change their thoughts and behaviors according to
the consensus-based decisions of their stakeholders. This variant of responsiveness is based
in discretionary ethics, which assumes a certain degree of administrator autonomy. Ethical
decisions are private decisions, wrestled in one’s mind. Ethics can also be deliberative,
based on socially constructed and possibly evolving norms. Such an ethical perspective
associates with collaborative responsiveness.

Vigoda (2002) describes the evolution of public administration as moving from
recognition of the public as consumers or clients to the public as partners or collaborators
with administrators. In the collaborative view, Vigoda suggests that responsiveness, at
least as defined in the New Public Management view, is not as useful a concept. Admin
istrators and citizens are acting as one to achieve a greater public good, as established
through collaboration and partnership.

This view is put into practice through various government-citizen interaction efforts
(King and Stivers 1998) and collaborative undertakings (Agranoff and McGuire 2003;
Kathi and Cooper 2005). For instance, the Learning and Design Forum (Kathi and Cooper
2005) instituted in the city of Los Angeles seeks to build trust and shared understanding of
common social concerns between city agencies and city neighborhood councils. Another
example is AmericaSpeaks (Lukensmeyer and Torres 2006), which is a large-scale citizen
discourse process to both empower citizens and inform the policy-making process.

Collaboration and deliberation are seen as remedies to an uninformed and dis
interested public, and, ethically, they are seen as means to get members of the public to
recognize the consequences of the public decisions they make. This latter point is one of
the bases of coming to public judgment, a process whereby members of the public move
through dialog from unstable preferences and opinion to stable and informed judgment
(Yankelovich 1991).

In terms of responsiveness, it may be the case that full collaboration does not require
decisions of responsiveness to whom and under what conditions. However, literature on

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

488 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

collaborative and deliberative processes contains cautionary notes regarding the ability
to engage everybody, all publics, in collaboration. The questions will always arise: What
public should be involved? What other stakeholders should be involved?

Fox and Miller (1995), in their quest for discourse, argue that pursuing a strategy of
“many talk” is not realistic. Rather, administrators should facilitate discourse among few,
rather than many. The few are what Cobb and Elder (1983) consider to be the central group,
the group’s public, and the attention group. These are parts of the public who are interested
and/or engaged in activities relevant to a specific issue or issue area. Two big parts of the
public are left out of this equation: the so-called attentive public and the behemoth, the
general public. With these concerns and practical problems of collaboration, it might not
ever be the case that the notion of responsiveness is irrelevant.

Rather, as citizens and particular publics seek collaboration directly with public
administrators, choices of responsiveness are made more complicated. Administrators
might have discretion, but they may still be tightly controlled in their ability to freely
and openly act within and interpret their environment. Couple this with demands for
collaboration, and administrators now must choose between responsiveness to those with
whom they are collaborating, as there is an obligation to citizenship and participation
(Cooper 1991), while also meeting the other obligations that exist in the environment:
to political masters, rules, professional norms, various purposive ends, and consumers. In
this way, collaboration is treated more as a negotiation.

Negotiated Responsiveness

The final variant of responsiveness reflects the challenge faced by administrators in
the increasingly collaborative environment to balance potentially conflicting ethical obliga
tions. Collaboration is one step beyond responsiveness in the evolution of government
citizen relations (Vigoda 2002), and the quest for responsiveness to competing obligations
in this collaborative environment might enable both greater responsiveness and more
collaboration (Vigoda-Gadot 2003).

In this environment, administrators might enter a collaborative undertaking, but they
treat collaboration more as negotiation. Negotiated responsiveness is the extent to which
administrators seek balance between multiple, potentially competing demands. Literature
on negotiation and conflict resolution is useful to understanding responsiveness in a nego
tiation context. A key point taken from negotiation literature is that an administrator will
respond based not only on the interests of oneself and the other parties (Fisher and Ury
1981) but also on the behaviors or actions of oneself and the other parties (Druckman and

Harris 1990).
Along these lines, Druckman (1977) discusses two types of responsiveness in a bar

gaining context: direct and internal. In the bargaining context, direct responsiveness is
to the previous demands made by the other parties in negotiation; internal responsiveness is
to one’s own previous demands in negotiation. That is, negotiators seek balance between
the demands being made by the other parties negotiating and the demands the focal nego
tiator is making.

To broaden these concepts from negotiation and bargaining to collaboration, admin
istrators while collaborating with certain publics are torn between direct responsiveness
to the interests and demands of the collaborators and internal responsiveness to the other
internalized ethical obligations that both guide and restrict administrator behavior. Internal

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 489

responsiveness in this case means responding to other obligations that are internalized.
Administrators are challenged to balance internal and direct responsiveness in a collabo
rative setting. They negotiate potentially conflicting obligations throughout and, perhaps
differently, in each phase of collaboration, based on their own interests and behaviors, as
well as the perceived interests and behaviors of those with whom they are collaborating.

These six variants of responsiveness introduced above will be used as the organizing
framework for a review of responsiveness studies. The review is not intended to be
comprehensive, but it does contain literature that is representative of the kind of work that
has been done in recent years. As part of the review of literature based on the six variants of
responsiveness, an answer will be given to the question: How relevant has literature on
responsiveness been to the environments and obligations of administrators?

BUREAUCRATIC RESPONSIVENESS IN THE LITERATURE

Bureaucratic responsiveness has been studied in multiple ways, using various definitions of
the concept, and diverse methods to assess the extent of it in various situations. This makes
a review of literature on responsiveness potentially complicated. To facilitate the review, it
will be organized by the variants introduced in the following order: dictated and purposive
responsiveness, constrained responsiveness, entrepreneurial responsiveness, and collabo
rative and negotiated responsiveness. This sequencing departs from the conceptual order
ing above in order to reflect where empirical literatures combine. Based on the review
below it is suggested that existing literature has addressed each variant in a relevant and
largely satisfactory way, but more needs to be done to combine perspectives. Following the
review, this is a theme returned to in conclusion.

Dictated and Purposive Responsiveness

Research and writing in public administration and political science have given significant
attention to dictated and purposive variants of responsiveness. More often than not, themes
related to each variant are addressed without explicit reference to responsiveness, but the
issue is still addressed implicitly. Overall, it can be said that writing in public administra
tion and related fields has been relevant to the challenges faced by administrators in being
responsive to each of the orders of political officials, their normative pursuits, and to both
simultaneously. Literature has approached the topic from various theoretical perspectives,
including principal-agent theory and theories of decision making, including bounded ra
tionality. Studies have used multiple types of methodology, and they have drawn numerous
implications from findings.

A central tension between dictated and purposive responsiveness is the issue of
neutrality. Rourke (1992) considers the declining worth of neutral competence as it might
exist in the bureaucracy. In doing so, he underscores how political leaders generally have
tried to control the bureaucracy and, failing that, have looked elsewhere for either sup
portive implementers of favored policies or neutral implementers of policy, regardless of
who was in office. Executives have sought and continue to seek control by increasing the
influence of politics in the bureaucracy, beginning with an increasing number of Schedule
C appointments (Rourke 1992) and culminating in the administrative presidency (Nathan
1975). Legislators seek control through hardwiring (Moe 1991) and the passage of new
administrative procedures (Baila 1998).

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

490 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

On this latter point, Baila (1998) shows in his study of the Health Care Financing
Administration that administrative procedures are not always efficacious in generating
a desired response by administrators. That is, political control is not exerted through all
forms of procedures enacted by legislative decision makers. Similarly, Chaney and
Saltzstein (1998) explore the relationship between direct orders interpreted through state
and local laws and police behavior in domestic violence situations. Using a principal-agent
model they find that direct orders sometimes shape bureaucratic behavior, but in other
cases, bureaucratic discretion is more important, thus suggesting the possibility of purpo
sive forms of responsiveness acting simultaneously with dictated forms.

In another research, Golden (1992) finds that bureaucrats in two federal agencies
responded to orders and attempts at control in the Reagan administration differently based
on ideology, dominant profession in the agency, and other such factors that together con
stitute the character and role orientation of the bureaucrat. She concluded that bureaucrats

can respond in one of four ways to direct control: (1) exit from the organization if the control
attempted is objectionable, (2) use voice to state how control attempted is objectionable, (3)
show loyalty to the President, regardless of the control attempted, or (4) show neglect by
acting with a lack of enthusiasm but in accordance with the attempted orders. In all, Golden
demonstrates the variety of possible responses to attempts at bureaucratic control.

The final piece that will be considered here as demonstrative of how research and
writing in public administration and related fields has been relevant in terms of dictated
responsiveness is a recent study by Meier and O’Toole (2005). They attempt to disentangle
the effects of political control from bureaucratic discretion and, ultimately, to challenge
literature on political control of the bureaucracy. To do this, they use representative
bureaucracy to show both control and discretion. The percentages of Latino school board
members in Texas districts were used as a measure of political control and influence, and
the percentage of Latino teachers were used as a measure of bureaucratic discretion. Using
Latino student achievement as a dependent variable, they found that political control (i.e.,
the values of politicians as measured by percentage of Latino school board members) was
not as effective at lifting Latino student achievement as bureaucratic/teacher influence.

The conclusion of this piece and all others reviewed above is as follows: be wary of
studies that suggest political control as dominant, as they might often miss valuable

measures of bureaucratic influence vis-?-vis political control. They might also fail to
account for alternative options of bureaucratic behavior in the face of control, per Golden
(1992).

Other literature is more concerned with purposive responsiveness. The Governor’s
Branch Offices documented by Vosburgh and Hyman (1973) provide an example for how
goals of client well-being supplanted rules and other constraints on responsiveness. In this
case, the Governor of Pennsylvania provided both the symbolic and transformational
leadership to change the culture of state government and the instrumental and transac
tional leadership to get the resources necessary to institute structural changes. The symbolic
leadership is demonstrated in the following statement made by the Governor to employees
of the newly created Governor’s Branch Offices: “You will no longer be part of (or
therefore defender of) the welfare system, or the employment security system, or any other
system. You are now an advocate for the person who comes into the Governor’s Branch
Offices with a problem” (Vosburgh and Hyman 1973, 438).

Administrators or advocates were encouraged in the Pennsylvania example to do what
was necessary to attend to all of the needs of clients that sought assistance. For instance,

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration

a regular newsletter was produced that reported the highly responsive and successful
actions of Governor’s Branch Offices advocates. One story reported how an advocate
brought an unemployed and homeless woman home with him and his family for a night,
fed her a meal, and drove her to a new job he found for her the following day.

Representative bureaucracy is taken up by a diverse array of literature (Dolan and
Rosenbloom 2003). Central in this literature is whether, how, and to what extent “passive
representation” turns into “active representation.” Passive representation is the demo
graphic character of members of the bureaucracy, as compared to the general population.
Rohr (1986) argues that such passive representation heals a major defect in the Constitu
tion, namely the small size and demographically unrepresentative nature of the U.S. House
of Representatives. Active representation, in terms of responsiveness, is purposive in
form, where administrators, due to their belonging to a particular demographic group,
act in a way benefiting the interests ofthat group.

Sowa and Seiden (2003) find that bureaucrats are more likely to be active represen
tatives of or responsive in their actions and decisions to minorities when they perceive
themselves to have high degrees of administrative discretion. Active representation and
responsiveness to a certain population might also require the cognitive adoption of a
minority representative role (Seiden, Brudney, and Kellough 1998) at multiple levels
of a multilevel governance system (Meier, O’Toole, and Nicholson-Crotty 2004). That
is, for instance, purposive forms of bureaucratic responsiveness might require teachers,
school administrators, and school board members to all actively represent minority or
otherwise underrepresented constituencies in order for there to be notable responsiveness
to those constituencies. Without active representatives at multiple levels of governance,
political opposition to certain bureaucratic initiatives might be more likely to succeed. This
is suggested by a study suggesting the primacy of political opposition in shaping bureau
cratic behavior when there are opportunities for active representatives to flourish (Kim
2003).

A final study that will be discussed here is interesting in that it implicitly bridges
purposive and constrained forms of responsiveness. Romzek and Hendricks (1982, 77)
ask “Is organizational involvement undermined by pressures for representation of outside
groups’ interests or enhanced by the opportunity to represent the interest of the public in
a bureaucratic setting?” The responsiveness issue implicitly dealt with here is that between
responsiveness constrained by organizational norms, goals, and rules, and responsiveness
to an outside constituency. To answer this question, the authors consider the difference
between advocacy organizations, such as the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and non
advocacy organizations, expecting to find differences based on the perceived role and
behaviors of each bureaucrat. They comment, for instance, that an “advocacy agency
may attract and hold employees whose action would be seen as inappropriate, disruptive,
or even subversive of organizational goals in a more conventional bureaucratic setting”
(Romzek and Hendricks 1982, 76).

Romzek and Hendricks (1982) suggest in conclusion that the challenge is for agencies
to not let organizational constraints and expectations conflict with the responsiveness goals
of administrators or the agency as a whole. That is, discretion of administrators should not

be channeled away from responsiveness behaviors that can achieve organizational goals.
With the effect of dictated action from elected officials on responsiveness mostly uncer
tain, the organization has the opportunity to constrain or free administrators to be respon
sive as they wish.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

492 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Constrained Responsiveness

Responsiveness can be constrained by organizational rules, cultures, or structures, as well
as by professional norms. Research has sought to understand this variant of responsiveness
from the perspectives of bounded rationality and resource dependence. Gormley, Hoadley,
and Williams (1983) recognize the boundedly rational character of administrators and thus
placed great importance on constraints and, particularly, the avenues for access and
influence within the constraints. They hypothesized that public utility commissioners

would be more responsive to their staff and utility company executives than to consumer
advocates; they would be least responsive to individual citizen activists. This hierarchy
of responsiveness is based on the access afforded to certain actors in a highly structured
and rule-bound process.

Reliance on rules and other constraints to inform responsiveness decisions are seen
in other studies. Mladenka (1981) examines bureaucratic responsiveness in two urban
areas: Chicago, a machine government, and Houston, a reformed government. He found
that variations in responsiveness behavior are best understood by examining adminis
trative procedures established to process citizen demands, as well as by the level of re
sources required to solve the problem. As such, Mladenka identifies three objects of
responsive behavior: powerful politicians, knowledgeable citizens, or administrative pro
cedures. The third object of response is a function of the technical-rational application of
rules and the structural characteristics of the agency that drive use of such rules to make
decisions. Getter and Schumaker (1978) similarly find that a reform government structure,
which consists of a council-manager government, nonpartisan elections, and at-large
representation, results in greater responsiveness to group demands, as opposed to public
opinion.

Another constraint considered here is from professional norms. Kearney and Sinha
(1988) address the concern that a professionalized bureaucracy will be responsive to
nothing but some narrow, self-preserving interest. They argue that the administrative state
consists of representatives from all professions and each of the four estates?scientific,
professional, administrative, and political. Whereas no single administrator will be re
sponsive to the broadly defined public interest, all administrators acting across their pro
fessions will be responsive to the public interest. Individually constrained behaviors are
a source of a collective responsiveness, unlike constraints that come from rules and cul
tures that could be aggregative in their influence across an agency and jurisdiction.

The lesson derived from studies such as these is that administrators are constrained

in their behavior, and the constraints in use as applied from above or self-imposed are
strong determinants and indicators of responsiveness. For instance, administrators and
bureaucracies may be less responsive to a given situation or stakeholder if the structures
in place and rules-in-use do not offer readily available avenues for action. Jones et al.
(1977) offer that responses by public agencies to citizen-initiated contacts may vary
if there is no general policy giving that agency responsibility to address the need
expressed through the contact. Similarly, the formal procedures in place can shape
the extent to which participation by some stakeholders is encouraged and the related
extent to which bureaucrats are procedurally able to be responsive to those stakeholders
(West 2004). Next to be considered is a variant of responsiveness that is free from the
kinds of constraints discussed here, except for the underlying rationale of customer
satisfaction.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 493

Entrepreneurial Responsiveness

Much has been written on entrepreneurial government, reinventing government, and new
public management. Several edited volumes have sought to teach and/or demonstrate the
virtues of private sector management practices, performance measurement and manage
ment techniques, and incentive pay systems as they apply to the public sector. Such
volumes include one produced by the Government Performance Coalition, a group con
sisting of various nonprofit, think tank, and academic bodies actively pursuing advances in
government performance (Abramson 2001). This same group produced a longer work,
though touching on the same or similar themes as the original collection (White and

Newcomer 2005). Klitgaard and Light (2005) edited a volume that provides lessons and
insights to achieve a high-performance government. So-called “best practices” are put on
display in a volume showing the private management practices brought to government by
mayors and governors (Andrisani, Hakim, and Leeds 2000). Private sector performance
measurement and management practices have been shown to apply well to government,
such as the balanced scorecard (Whittaker 2001), which requires that agencies measure
their performance based on multiple measures according to the expectations of different
stakeholders.

Central to reinvention and new public management literature are themes of customer
orientation and responsiveness to customers. Alford (2002) seeks to understand the cus
tomer relationship from the perspective of social-exchange, whereby administrators are
responsive to their customers with the expectation that they will get something back in
return, such as information, knowledge of local conditions, or compliance with adminis
trator directives. Research has also considered how responsiveness to customers might
result in diminished responsiveness to elected officials, thus potentially reducing the dem
ocratic value of customer-oriented reinvented government (Kettl 1993; Kelly 1998).
Customer orientation is also emphasized in efforts to measure citizen satisfaction with
government services and programs with the intention of enhancing responsiveness to
customers (Chi 1999). Various how-to guides point the way for public agencies to suc
cessfully measure their performance and assess citizen satisfaction (Hatry et al. 1998;
Hatry 1999).

Cope (1997) considers responsiveness in the entrepreneurial context but does not
present any empirical findings. He argues that various reinvention and entrepreneurial
efforts are potentially damaging to political and general responsiveness, which is respon
siveness to all citizens. Reinvention efforts, he argues, aim to achieve specific responsive
ness, which is responsiveness to individual customers. He prefers strategies that bring
together citizen and policy makers with administrators. In this way, responsiveness is more
than producing a detailed and comprehensive budget or strategic planning document for
public consumption; it is based on interaction, influence, and understanding by citizens.
The work by Cope (1997) nicely leads into a discussion of collaborative responsiveness, or,
more simply collaboration.

Collaborative and Negotiated Responsiveness

Vigoda (2002) suggests that once collaboration between administrators and citizens is
achieved, responsiveness is no longer an issue. Administrators acting in a collaborative
and deliberative fashion will “seek both efficiency and effectiveness, short-run and long
run perspectives, global and local considerations, individual and collective needs, social

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

494 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

and economic concerns, security and freedom, change and stability, diversity and com
monality of purpose” (Roberts 1997, 125).

In the collaborative and deliberative context, Roberts (1997) examines what she calls
a generative approach to policy making. Through such an approach, various stakeholders
are incorporated into policy-making, goal setting, and implementation activities. She
examines two examples: setting direction in educational policy and reducing a school
district budget. Through her analysis, she demonstrated the potential for collaboration
and deliberation to replace responsiveness, as suggested by Vigoda (2002).

An extensive amount of work on collaboration, negotiated rule making, network
structures of governance, and coproduction of services continues to appear in numerous
journals and at various conferences. For example, a collection of work from a recent con
ference on civic engagement at the University of Southern California appeared in the
Public Administration Review (Cooper 2005). Papers presented and published in the
collection addressed various issues of engagement, collaboration, the tools to achieve
each, and some empirical findings that show the possibility of each. One piece examines
the mechanics of a collaborative model to bring together administrative agencies with citi
zen groups to develop shared understanding, trust, and, ultimately, enhanced relationships
and possibly improved service delivery (Kathi and Cooper 2005).

There is a shift happening in the environments of public administrators now from an
interaction of responsiveness by managers to clients/customers to collaboration between
citizens and public employees (Vigoda 2002). This shift, however, is likely to be more
challenging for administrators, who have multiple other obligations and constraints as
discussed thus far. According to Vigoda (2002, 538): “In the coming decades, [public
administrators] are likely to face citizens’ demands to treat them as equal partners. This
shift forward is expected to be less readily adopted by government and public administra
tion [than by citizens themselves].” In this situation, administrators will perhaps tend to
treat collaboration, of the kind described by Roberts (1997) and Kathi and Cooper (2005)
as more of a negotiation.

Research on this gray area between responsiveness to customers/clients (along with
the various constraints on action and behavior) and collaboration with citizens is not
readily available. Exceptions arise when looking at research on the unwillingness of
administrators to collaborate or accept negotiated agreements. Though not addressing
responsiveness directly, such literature shows the struggle on the part of administrators
to be responsive to multiple and potentially conflicting demands. For instance, Thomas
(1997) observes how public agency executives are more likely to secure their autonomy
than to form interagency cooperative relationships in order to protect their organizational
units from instability. Different motivations of this kind are also reflected in the work of
Paolisso (2002), who observed how experiential knowledge of watermen in Maryland’s
Chesapeake Bay conflicted with the scientific knowledge preferences of Maryland regu
lators, thus minimizing the amount of trust between the two actors.

Another example comes from Parkinson (2004), who observes how the ideals of
deliberative democracy are difficult to achieve once they collide with the work practices
and assumptions of the new public manager. There may be a preference for separating the
ordinary citizen from the knowledgeable citizen, thus failing to generate needed citizen
input or advanced learning about citizen needs. Harter (1997) discusses how regulatory
agencies might not be willing to commit to the recommendations derived through nego
tiated agreement, perhaps due to a general fear of commitment and lost power and control.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 495

Both writers see potential for collaboration and negotiated rule making, but there are
barriers to pass. Barriers may be overcome through assurance mechanisms regarding the
participation in negotiation or collaboration and how agreements will be used (Weber and
Khademian 1997). Until such mechanisms or other solutions are discovered and applied in
all settings, questions remain as to how and why administrators respond to different
demands when their ethical loyalties are divided in so many ways.

TOWARD A RELEVANT AGENDA FOR A RESPONSIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

The crossroads of public administrators represent three not necessarily compatible paths:
technical-rational, entrepreneurial, and citizen participatory. If public administration were
to be considered in evolutionary terms, it might be said that the field is evolving from
a customer/client-oriented responsive government to collaborative governance (Vigoda
2002) and from specific responsiveness to general responsiveness (Cope 1997).

However, any evolution that may be occurring is not replacing old forms of gover
nance with newer forms. Rather, new forms are being developed within older forms. Such
resultant overlapping produces collisions (Parkinson 2004) between values and obligations
of administrators and the new demands placed on their time and resources. For instance,
in a collaborative exercise, administrators will have choices regarding how much time,
resources, and energy will be applied to the collaboration as opposed to responsiveness
to political leaders, agency rules or norms, a particularly deserving class of stakeholders,
and/or individual customers of government. In cases of collaboration with a limited num
ber of stakeholders, administrators are being asked to recognize specialized and localized
needs of a particular community or group of individuals and to be responsive to that group,
rather than to offer the same services in the same manner to this as to all other groups.

In this context, there are questions that emerge regarding responsiveness. First among
these might be: What set of ethical obligations take precedence when there are multiple
demands set within the realm of an administrator’s environment? Do the dictates of elected

officials dominate over bureaucratic constraints in determining responsiveness? How much
does a desire to please the customer matter in the collaborative context? How does the
inner-negotiation of the administrator play out when collaborators are seeking change and
responsiveness to their unique concerns while the concerns of another set of customer
stakeholders, constraints of the bureaucracy, and dictates of politicians are pushing for
the attention of the administrator as well?

These questions have mostly been addressed in pieces, looking at one possible in
fluence on administrator thought and action independent of other possible influences.
The collision, as Parkinson (2004) describes it, is what might be of most interest in this
governance era, rather than the separate components, acting independently.

Another way to view these questions is within the dynamic context of collaboration.
A study of collaborative effects is not entirely well suited to a static cross-sectional design.
Rather, long-term tracking of administrator and citizen thought and behavior is desired to
capture change in responsiveness and views regarding obligations, if change occurs at all.
The question that can be asked here makes use of Waldo’s (1948) administrative state
concept, which connotes the idea that public administration is at the center of the policy
making and implementation arenas. Kathi and Cooper (2005) ask the question of how the
administrative state can be democratized. Their answer was through a collaborative model
between public agencies and citizens called the Learning and Design Forum. Building on

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

496 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

their question, a new one arises: How is bureaucratic responsiveness affected when the
administrative state is opened through collaboration between administrators and citizens?

The different variants of responsiveness introduced in this article suggest that re
sponsiveness may or may not change. Dictated responsiveness, grounded partially in
principal-agent theory, suggests that the political environment will control the response;
constrained responsiveness, informed by theories of bureaucracy, bounded rationality,
and resource dependence, suggests that responsiveness will not change. Indeed, this per
spective suggests the possibility of exaggerated action to avoid change (Weick 1991), thus
potentially resulting in a change in citizen attitudes and behaviors rather than in adminis
trator attitudes and behaviors as through co-optation (Selznick 1949; Pfeffer and Salancik
1978). Collaborative responsiveness, which can be explored through theories of learning,
suggests that administrators will open themselves to learning and change based on inter
actions with citizens.

In the case where an administrator is operating in a New Public Management culture,
rather than the traditional administrative state culture, the question is related but different:
How is bureaucratic responsiveness affected when the new public manager is subjected to
collaboration between administrators and citizens? As above, there are numerous possible
answers to this question, depending on which set of ethical obligations are dominant for the
individual administrator.

In the dynamic context of collaboration, responsiveness needs to be understood
in order to provide public managers and stakeholders of public organizations, including
citizens, with knowledge of how successful collaboration can be in terms of enhancing
responsiveness. Theoretical justifications can be proposed for any one possible outcome,
but a theory needs to be developed to explain why and how responsiveness might change
through collaboration when all competing perspectives are taken together.

Research on negotiated responsiveness thus should proceed to develop such theory
and supply such practical knowledge. It is not likely that a large-scale quantitative study
will generate the kinds of information needed at this point in time. Rather focus should be
on conducting individual case studies and, where possible, multiple case studies where
administrators are placed in a collaborative context and where the dynamics of change
can be observed from before the start of collaboration until after the collaborative process
has reached some kind of conclusion or milestone. Research should test individual theories

that would explain the dominance of any one ethical perspective and responsiveness variant
in the collaborative context but should also be open to the development of new theory to fit
this evolving context.

In summary, future research on responsiveness should be dynamic in design rather
than static in order to capture the possible changes over time in administrator thought and
behavior. Not only should the effect of opening the administrative state to collaboration be
considered but also the reasons for the observed effect should be explored, as suggested by
the questions above. Overall, it is clear in the literature that the environments of admin
istrators and the ethical obligations confronting administrators are changing but also very

much remaining the same. Suggestions to fade the concept of responsiveness in favor of
a reinterpretation are as of now premature, but researchers need to show that there is still
much to learn in order to keep responsiveness as a central and relevant concept in public
administration. To do this, all six variants need to be actively considered within the context
of the increasingly networked and collaborative forms of governance existing in today’s
public administration.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 497

REFERENCES

Abramson, Mark A., ed. 2001. Memos to the President: Management advice from the nation ‘s top public
administrators. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Adams, Guy B., and Danny L. Balfour. 2004. Unmasking administrative evil. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003. Collaborative public management: New strategies for

local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
Alford, John. 2002. Defining the client in the public sector: A social-exchange perspective. Public

Administration Review 62:337-46.
Andrisani, Paul J., Simon Hakim, and Eva Leeds. 2000. Making government work: Lessons from

America’s governors and mayors. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Ronald H. Humphrey. 1995. Labeling processes in the organization:

Constructing the individual. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. L. L. Cummings and
B. M. Staw, 413-61. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

-. 1997. The ubiquity and potency of labeling organizations. Organization Science 8:43?58.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of

Management Review 14:20-39.
Baila, Steven J. 1998. Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. American

Political Science Review 92:663?73.
Boisot, Max, and John Child. 1999. Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments: The

case of China. Organization Science 10:237?52.
Chaney, Carole Kennedy, and Grace Hall Saltzstein. 1998. Democratic control and bureaucratic

responsiveness: The police and domestic violence. American Journal of Political Science
42:745-^68.

Chi, Keon S. 1999. Improving responsiveness. Public Administration Review 59:278?80.
Child, John. 1972. Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice.

Sociology 6:1?22.
-. 1997. Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment:

Retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies 18:43?76.
Cobb, Roger W., and Charles D. Elder. 1983. Participation in American politics: The dynamics of

agenda-building. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Cooper, Terry L. 1987. Hierarchy, virtue, and the practice of public administration: A perspective for

normative ethics. Public Administration Review 47:320?8.

-. 1991. An ethic of citizenship for public administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
-. 2005. Civic engagement in the twenty-first century: Toward a scholarly and practical agenda.

Public Administration Review 65:534?5.

Cope, Glen Hahn. 1997. Bureaucratic reform and issues of political responsiveness. Journal of Public
Administration Research & Theory 7:461?71.

Dolan, Julie, and David H. Rosenbloom. 2003. Representative bureaucracy: Classic readings and
continuing controversies. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Druckman, Daniel. 1977. Boundary role conflict: Negotiation as dual responsiveness. The Journal of
Conflict Resolution 21:639-62.

Druckman, Daniel, and Richard Harris. 1990. Alternative models of responsiveness in international
negotiation. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 34:234-51.

Finer, H. 1941. Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review
1:335-50.

Fisher, Roger, and William L. Ury. 1981. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.
New York: Penguin.

Fox, Charles J., and Hugh T. Miller. 1995. Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frederickson, George H. 1971. Toward a new public administration. In Toward a new public
administration: The Minnowbrook perspective, ed. F. Marini, 309-31. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

-. 1990. Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review 50:228-37.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

498 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

-. 1994. Can public officials correctly be said to have obligation to future generations? Public
Administration Review 54:457?64.

-. 1996. Comparing the reinventing government movement with the new public administration.
Public Administration Review 56:263?70.

Friedrich, C. J. 1940. Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In Public policy,
ed. C. J. Friedrich, 1?24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Getter, Russell W., and Paul D. Schumaker. 1978. Contextual bases of responsiveness to citizen
preferences and group demands. Policy and Politics 6:249-78.

Giuliani, Rudolph W. 2000. Reforming New York City: A new chapter in reinventing government.
In Making government work: Lessons from America’s governors and mayors, ed. P. J. Andrisani,
S. Hakim, and E. Leeds, 161-6. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Golden, Marissa Martino. 1992. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Bureaucratic responses to presidential
control during the Reagan administration. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory
2:29-62.

Goodnow, Frank J. 1900. Politics and administration: A study in government. New York: Russell &
Russell.

Gormley, W., J. Hoadley, and C. Williams. 1983. Potential responsiveness in the bureaucracy: Views of
public utility regulation. The American Political Science Review 7:704?17.

Hannan, Michael T., and John Freeman. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American
Sociological Review 49:149-64.

Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of commitment: An affliction of adolescents. Duke Law Journal
46:138^-428.

Hatry, Harry P. 1999. Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Press.

Hatry, Harry P., John E. Marcotte, Th?r?se van Houten, and Carol H. Weiss. 1998. Customer surveys for
agency managers: What managers need to know. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Jones, B. D., S. R. Greenberg, C. Kaufman, and J. Drew. 1977. Bureaucratic response to citizen-initiated
contacts: Environmental enforcement in Detroit. The American Political Science Review
71:148-65.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, and Derick Brinkerhoff. 1981. Organizational performance: Recent
developments in measurements. Annual Review of Sociology 7:321^-0.

Kathi, Pradeep Chandra, and Terry L. Cooper. 2005. Democratizing the administrative state: Connecting
neighborhood councils and city agencies. Public Administration Review 65:559-67.

Kaufman, Herbert. 1956. Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. The American
Political Science Review 50:1057?73.

Kearney, Richard C, and Chandan Sinha. 1988. Professionalism and bureaucratic responsiveness:
Conflict or compatibility. Public Administration Review 48:571?9.

Kelly, Rita Mae. 1998. An inclusive democratic polity, representative bureaucracies, and the new public
management. Public Administration Review 58:201?8.

Kettl, Donald F. 1993. Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.

Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2003. Representation and policy outputs: Examining the linkage between passive and
active representation. Public Personnel Management 32:549-59.

King, Cheryl Simrell, and Camilla Stivers. 1998. Government is us: Public administration in an
anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Klitgaard, Robert, and Paul Light, eds. 2005. High-performance government: Structure, leadership,
incentives. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

La Porte, Todd R. 1971. The recovery of relevance in the study of public organizations. In Toward a new
public administration: The Minnowbrookperspective, ed. F. Marini, 17-48. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

Light, Paul C. 1997. The tides of reform: Making government work 1945?1995. New Haven, CT:
Yale Univ. Press.

Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., and Lars H. Torres. 2006. Public deliberation: A manager’s guide to public
deliberation. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Bryer Responsive Public Administration 499

Maesschalck, Jeroen. 2004. The impact of new public management reforms on public servants’ ethics:
Towards a theory. Public Administration 82:465-89.

March, James G. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of
Economics 9:587?608.

March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Organizations. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Marini, F., ed. 1971. Toward a new public administration. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
McCubbins, Mathew D., Roger G. Noll, and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. Administrative procedures as

instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3:243?77.
McGinn, Kathy, and Patricia M. Patterson. 2005. A long way toward what? Sex, gender, feminism,

and the study of public administration. International Journal of Public Administration
28:929-42.

Meier, Kenneth J., and Laurence J. O’Toole. 2005. Political control versus bureaucratic values:
Refraining the debate. Presented at the Public Management Research Conference, September
29-October 1, Los Angeles, CA.

Meier, Kenneth J., Lawrence J. O’Toole, and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2004. Multilevel governance
and organizational performance: Investigating the political-bureaucratic labyrinth. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management 23:31^47.

Miller, Gary. 2000. Above politics: Credible commitment and efficiency in the design of public agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:289?327.

Mladenka, Kenneth R. 1981. Citizen demands and urban services: The distribution of bureaucratic
response in Chicago and Houston. American Journal of Political Science 25:693?714.

Moe, T. 1997. The positive theory of public bureaucracy. In Perspectives on public choice,
ed. D. Mueller, 455?80. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Moe, Terry M. 1991. Politics and the theory of organization. Special Issue, Journal of Law, Economics,
& Organization 7:106?29.

Nathan, Richard P. 1975. The plot that failed: Nixon and the administrative presidency. New York:
John Wiley.

O’Toole, Laurence J. 1997. The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal
of Public Administration Research & Theory 7:443?59.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector from schoolhouse to statehouse, city hall to the pentagon. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.
Paolisso, Michael. 2002. Blue crabs and controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A cultural model for

understanding watermen’s reasoning about blue crab management. Human Organization
61:226-39.

Parkinson, John. 2004. Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and new public managers.
Public Administration 82:377?95.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Roberts, Nancy. 1997. Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting
direction. Public Administration Review 57:124-32.

Rohr, John A. 1986. To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. Lawrence, KS:
Univ. Kansas Press.

Romzek, Barbara S., and J. Stephen Hendricks. 1982. Organizational involvement and representative
bureaucracy: Can we have it both ways? The American Political Science Review 76:75?82.

Rourke, Francis E. 1992. Responsiveness and neutral competence in American bureaucracy. Public
Administration Review 52:539-46.

Schlager, Elinor, and Elinor Ostrom. 1992. Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual
analysis. Land Economics 68:249?62.

Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and organizations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seiden, Sally C, Jeffrey L. Brudney, and J. E. Kellough. 1998. Bureaucracy as a representative

institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. American
Journal of Political Science 42:717-44.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

500 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the grassroots: A study in the sociology of formal organization. Berkeley,
CA: Univ. California Press.

Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in
administrative organizations. 4th ed. New York: Knopf.

Sowa, J. E., and Sally C. Seiden. 2003. Administrative discretion and active representation: An
expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 63:700?10.

Stewart, Debra W. 1991. Theoretical foundations of ethics in public administration: Approaches to
understanding moral action. Administration & Society 23:357?73.

Stivers, Camilla. 1994. The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public
Administration Review 54:364-9.

-. 2001. Citizenship ethics in public administration. In Handbook of administrative ethics,
ed. T. L. Cooper, 435?55. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Thomas, Craig W. 1997. Public management as interagency cooperation: Testing epistemic community
theory at the domestic level. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 7:221^6.

Thompson, Dennis F. 1985. The possibility of administrative ethics. Public Administration Review
45:555-61.

Vosburgh, W. W. and D. Hyman. 1973. Advocacy and bureaucracy: The life and times of a decentralized
citizen’s advocacy program. Administrative Science Quarterly 18:433^18.

Vigoda, Eran. 2002. From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation
of public administration. Public Administration Review 62:527-40.

Vigoda-Gadot, Eran. 2003. Managing collaboration in public administration: The promise of alliance
among governance, citizens, and business. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Waldo, Dwight. 1948. The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public
administration. New York: Holmes and Meier.

Weber, Edward P., and Anne M. Khademian. 1997. From agitation to collaboration: Clearing the air
through negotiation. Public Administration Review 57:396-410.

Weick, Karl E. 1991. The nontraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization Science
2:116-24.

-. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
West, William F. 2004. Formal procedures, informal processes, accountability, and responsiveness

in bureaucratic policy making: An institutional policy analysis. Public Administration Review
64:66-80.

Whetten, David A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review
14:490-5.

White, Barry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer, eds. 2005. Getting results: A guide for federal leaders and
managers. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.

Whittaker, James B. 2001. Balanced scorecard in the federal government. Vienna, VA: Management
Concepts.

Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly 2:481?506.
Yankelovich, Daniel. 1991. Coming to public judgment. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press.
Yanow, Dvora. 2003. Constructing “race” and “ethnicity” in America: Category-making in public

policy and administration. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

This content downloaded from 208.95.50.183 on Sat, 09 Sep 2017 00:34:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

[479]
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500

Issue Table of Contents

Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), pp. 357-534
Front Matter
Strategic Management and the Performance of Public Organizations: Testing Venerable Ideas against Recent Theories [pp. 357-377]
E-Government and Bureaucracy: Toward a Better Understanding of Intranet Implementation and Its Effect on Red Tape [pp. 379-404]
Institutional Shaping of Interagency Working: Managing Tensions between Collaborative Working and Client Confidentiality [pp. 405-434]
Resource Tangibility and Patterns of Interaction in a Publicly Funded Health and Human Services Network [pp. 435-454]
Performance Targets and Public Service Improvement [pp. 455-477]
Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive Public Administration [pp. 479-500]
The Smart-Seller Challenge: Exploring the Determinants of Privatizing Public Nursing Homes [pp. 501-527]
Book Reviews
Review: Interpreting Public Administration [pp. 529-531]
Review: Social Capital Complications [pp. 532-534]
Back Matter

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

discussion board

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades