What is EGOS?

A professional association of researchers and teachers acting as a network for the advancement of organizational knowledge

Organizing the Public sector: Governance and Public Management Reform

The SWG’s research domain and academic aims

The organization of the public sector is an important and relevant topic both theoretically and practically. Actual reforms in the public sector often contain a mix of elements of hierarchy, networks, market orientation and self-organizing, which refer to complex, sometimes conflicting processes of policy-making, implementation and interpretation. In the past years, it was noticed that changing modes of governance and public management reform cannot simply be explained by one specific concept or discourse but are influenced by diverse ideas and interests of both public and private actors at various levels of change (Dent, Van Gestel & Teelken, 2007). The purpose of this Standing Working Group ‘Organizing the Public sector: Governance and Public Management Reform’ is to provide empirical findings and thorough explanations for these developments in public sector organizations. The SWG aims to further enhance the debate of organizational theorists about changing modes of governance and management of public sector organizations. The SWG invites researchers in the field of public organizations and public sector reform for an open, stimulating debate within EGOS.

The term governance, originally considered synonymously with government has obtained a new meaning, it ‘refers to self-organising, inter-organisational networks characterized by interdependence, resource-exchange, rules of the game, and significant autonomy from the state’ (Rhodes 1997:15). Governance is considered a form of network management and the coordination of the plurality and complexity of hierarchies, markets and networks (Kjaer 2005). Public management seems gradually being reformed into a system of performance measurement and decentralised decision-making, e.g. the British ‘best value’ program for local authorities. National governments aspire to become more accountable to their citizens, while public and semi-public organisations are required to increase transparency and demonstrate the results of their activities to their customers.

The governance and management reforms within the public sector often have differential consequences for (sub)sectors, as well as for organisations and individuals, in a national and international comparison. Research in public management reform and governance has traditionally been carried out in a predominantly national context. Although national research is still dominant, the number of cross-sectional and international studies is gradually increasing. So far, there was not much effort to ‘cherish and build on the potentially positive elements in traditional professionalism’ (Foster and Wilding 2000: 157). Instead Ackroyd et al. (2007) conclude that ‘the tendency has been to introduce reform in a way that was almost guaranteed to maximize disruption and opposition.’ This urges research in the public sector even more. Given the variety and complexity of governance and public management reform within Europe, there is an imperative that EGOS has a forum where these issues and challenges can be discussed.

We distinguish four important research topics in the SWG:

1. Consumerism (clients) versus democracy (citizens)

User choice is a key theme in the delivery of social and health services across much of Europe. It is especially noticeable within the health care and education arenas, but also present to some degree in the organisation and delivery of all services. The concept of user choice seems to reflect a coming together of the principles of market competition and deliberative democracy, although this relationship may be an ambivalent one. Questions to be asked, are e.g.

Whether governments are prepared to give up control of publicly funded services and provide autonomy to the service organisations.
Are the clients of public sector services only passive consumers or active citizens, prepared to be involved in decision-making processes to ensure effective and efficient services?
How democratic are the new forms of network governance in relation to their clients and which methodological tools do we need to describe and define this (Mathur & Skelcher 2006)?

2. Professionalism versus managerialism

From the mid-eighties, public sector professionals have been increasingly challenged by the concepts of a ‘new’ public management (Ackroyd et al 2006, Dent 2003). These principles and practices tend to be quite opposite to the more classical values and practices that are generally held by the academic professionals within universities (Chandler et al. 2002; Townley 1997), the health sector (Scott et al 2001) or other public sector organisations (Ackroyd et al. 2006). Another aspect of this theme is that of trust (between professional and client; between professionals) versus accountability (formalised relationships). This reflects a tension between the client/professional relations and the broader issues relating to the efficient management of services. This is an issue of accountability reflected in the growth audit of professional work and services (Power 1996; EGOS 2006, subtheme 28, accountability versus transparency). Questions are, e.g.:

How do public sector professionals respond to the challenges of managerialism?
How are conflicts resolved as professionals try to maintain their autonomy against the imposition of management control system?
What impact does this have on service provision and work satisfaction of professionals?

3. Individual actors and organizations in the public management change process

Public sector reforms have traditionally been the result of ‘top down’ decision-making, and their implementation is often evaluated from a national and/or European perspective. This is increasingly seen as out of step with the growing emphasis on a client focus and there is a growing interest in the actors' involvement in these change processes and their outcomes. The growing attention for the actor’s perspective can also be recognised in the debate of institutional change (Dacin, Goodstein & Scott 2002). Relevant questions might be e.g.:

What types of agency and power relations are most relevant in public management reform and institutional change (Meyer 2006)?
How crucial are the informal processes of actors engaged in creating, maintaining or disrupting these processes?
What is the role of individuals (i.e. professionals, managers, users) in the creation of network governance or in intra- and inter-organizational dynamics of institutional fields (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy 2000)?

4. Autonomy and control of public sector organisations

Autonomy of public sector organisations has typically reflected a professional dominance legitimated in terms of public/ client service, this is especially true in the educational, social and health services. With the new public management, the legitimacy of professionalism has been challenged but its managerial replacement (of consumer focus, market competition etc) appears to lack as much credibility. At the same time several European countries have an established history of local autonomy and control of public sector organisations, for example, Sweden and Germany, while elsewhere control has been strongly centralised - as in France and the UK with little organisational autonomy, at least in the formal sense. The imposition of new regimes of governance challenge established organisational and professional cultures and practices, which are rarely completely swept away but become sedimented within the new arrangements.Questions that might be interesting are e.g.:

If public management reforms have blurred distinctions between the public and private sectors, what have been the implications for the management and delivery of services?
Can we possibly speak of a specific type of European Community governance or is it more accurate to refer to a range of regimes (e.g. Esping-Andersen 1990)?

Each year, the theme and research topics of the SWG are connected to the general EGOS theme. This implies that we have chosen for the title of our subtheme in 2009:

Investigating Creativity and Innovation: How does the Public Sector innovate and respond to Governance and Public Management Reform?

Emphasis will be laid on creativity and innovation in for example health care, education, transport, energy, housing or social services.