Sub-theme 51: In the Shadows of Public Sector Reforms
Call for Papers
In the last three decades we assisted to a considerable development of a scientific body of knowledge built around
the analysis of innovation in public organizations. Such analysis follows the waves of reforms that allegedly reshaped the
panorama of public administrations around the world. Even though we can say that the literature produced did not lack in critical
perspectives, those were mainly focused on discussing the validity of new public management as a paradigm and subsequently,
according to the authors preferences, either the championing of new paradigms or the recognition of regional versions of this
"universal concept" (public governance, new public governance, public value, new Weberian state). Another focus of research
has been the gap analysis between the rhetoric of reforms and their actual implementation. Such research focuses mainly on
macro-level analysis of compliance to the new legal or regulatory frameworks such as new management policies or performance
management systems.
There has been, on the contrary, very little reflection on the organizational impact, in
terms of power relations inside and outside public organization, organizational design and HR policies of broad reformative
templates. The analysis of the roles of "street level" bureaucrats and front line workers in public administration reforms
have, however, highlighted both the need for such a reflection and the need to broaden its scope, departing from a dichotomy
between micro/macro perspective (i.e. individual coping vs. change management strategies) to embrace a more practice-oriented
and contextual perspective on transformative capacities within public sectors.
The broadening of the scope should
enable to explore and discuss the impact of such reform frameworks and the way organizations cope with the contradictory demands
of reforms (i.e. managerial autonomy/disciplinary-control systems; customer orientation/standardization; competence development/behavioral
alignment).
The main issues addressed by this sub-theme are framed in way to address possible gaps in research
concerning (1) the repercussion of private-like management systems in public administrations, departing from a successful/unsuccessful
approach to focus on how these are enacted by public organizations; (2) the comparative analysis of cross-sectoral and cross-national
experiences of public management reform, focusing on the deconstruction/reconstruction of cultural/professional paradigms
and identities within administrations rather than limiting to the identification of macro (social, cultural) or micro (individual
behaviors) determinants; (3) the role of various strategies to develop capacities that are broader than the more traditional
focus on training.
For example, we expect that some works will go beyond the dominant view of training and capacity
development as an organizational/HR function, especially in the context of reform implementations:
First, we would
like to address the issue relates to the shortcomings of performance management systems in the public sector, in particular
the difficulty to connect input, output and outcome in organizational contexts that are characterized by a strong interdependency
among different institutions and a considerable uncertainty on the variables affecting outcome (i.e. the impossibility for
the public administration to control all the variables at stake despite expectations regarding accountability and performance).
This can lead, from an organizational perspective, to paradoxical situations where the push for managerial autonomy is counterbalanced
by an ever-growing body of restrictions and disciplinary/control systems measures that form a new kind of bureaucratic culture
(i.e. the new Weberian state; cf. Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). The consequences of this trend on managerial competences
needs further theoretical and empirical development capitalizing on various streams of research including more careful analysis
of the role of public managers in implementing change, and in public sectors at large (Dopson & Neumann, 1998; Emery &
Giauque, 2003; Tummers et al., 2009; Chauvière, 2010; De Gaulejac 2009; 2010; Tummers, 2011).
Second, the generalizing
assumptions behind the rhetoric of public management tend to brush aside the differences among types of administrations (regulatory,
productive, services) and countries as regards the organizational impact of reforms. We argue that there is a need to deepen
our understanding of possible differences and convergence in cross-sectoral (e.g., health, education, judicial) researches
in regards of the various organizational accommodations developed to cope with these contradictory demands (Ackroyd et al.,
2007). The need for more comparative analysis emerges also from a country perspective, as the reform trajectories have produced
a high variety of organizational responses in terms of performance evaluation, competency identification and development and
institutional arrangements (Van Wart et al., 2014).
Third, public sector reforms face the challenge of operating
in a relatively short time period organizational development at large-scale to support implementation and more suitainable
changes (Barzelay, 2001), calling upon an organizational transformation influencing both the political (Mintzberg, 1979) and
cultural aspects (Driscoll & Morris, 2001) of public organizations. Within this perspective, although the relationship
between human resources and implications for organizational development is a common topic in change management research, we
seldom encounter a more reflexive approach on civil servant training, on its nature and on the way it actually contributes
to change. On this topic, even the management debate called for further research and publications (Rothwell et al., 2013;
Kettl, 2010). In public sector, education and training at large is certainly a topic of interest, but it is treated often
as being instrumental to the broader policy agenda. This issue will be discussed with a preoccupation to engage a dialog
with institutions responsible for the development of capacities in public sectors (schooly of public administration, higher
education, vocational fraining) and to inform the management of policies and strategies in this domain (PISA indicators, quality
of research, etc.).
Within this overarching frame and set of issues, our sub-theme aims at examining theoretical,
empirical and practice-based research questions such as:
- The varieties of organizational accommodation following public sector reforms and the "side-effects" of the managerialist cure in public organizations
- The consequence of recruitment and HR policies on organizational capability to cope, implement and co-develop reforms
- Challenging the assumptions behind approaches to managerial competence development in public organizations
- Professional involvement in the development of managerial innovations and strategies for reforms
- Innovative training approaches to develop capacities in support of public sector reforms
- Institutional power-relations and the role of higher education in preparing for public Administration
References
- Barzelay, M. (2001): The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Chauvière, M. (2010): "De l'impératif d'intégration au travail social libéral, les dégâts du New Public Management." MANA, Revue de sociologie et d'anthropologie MANA, 17–18, 181–197.
- De Gaulejac, V. (2009): La Société malade de la gestion. Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
- De Gaulejac, V. (2010): "Le Management entre contradictions et paradoxes." MANA, Revue de sociologie et d'anthropologie, 17–18.
- Driscoll, A., & Morris, J. (2001): "Stepping out: rhetorical devices and culture change management in the UK civil service." Public Administration, 79 (4), 804–824.
- Dopson, S., & Neumann, J.E. (1998): "Uncertainty, contrariness and the double bind: Middle managers' reactions to changing contracts." British Journal of Management, 9, 53–70.
- Emery, Y., & Giauque, D. (2003): "Emergence of Contradictory Injunctions in Swiss NPM Projects." International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16 (6), 468–481.
- Kettl, D.F. (2000): "The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government." Public Administration Review, 60 (6), 488–497.
- Mintzberg, H. (1979): The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011): Public Management Reform: A comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Rothwell, W.J, Arneson, J., & Naughton, J. (eds.) (2013): ASTD Competency Study: The Training & Development Profession Redefined. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
- Tummers, L.G., Bekkers, V.J.J.M., & Steijn, A.J. (2009): "Policy alienation of public professionals: Application in a new public management context." Public Management Review, 11 (5), 685–706.
- Tummers, L.G. (2011): "Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework." International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77 (3), 555–581.
- Wagner, J.A. (1978): "The organizational double bind: Toward an understanding of rationality and its complement." Academy of Management Review, 3 (4), 786–795.
- Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Meiri, S. (2008): "New public management values and person-organization fit: A socio-psychological approach and empirical examination among public sector personnel." Public Administration, 86 (1), 11–131.