Informal networks are crucial for the functioning of public organizations and the quality of government service. Because of this, public administration scholars increasingly theorize on what drives informal network behavior, particularly in terms of whom public officials contact for information or advice. However, existing studies provide a rather rational and strategic account of how such networking occurs, pointing to factors, such as preference similarity, resource availability, and social capital as its main drivers. This article critiques the microfoundations of existing theoretical models, arguing that they (a) potentially require too extensive information-processing capabilities on behalf of individual decision-makers and (b) discount the role that affect and emotive responses are likely to play in the social activity of networked interaction. In response, this article proposes three lines of theorizing on how (interpersonal) affect can be incorporated into theorizing about the network behavior of public officials: (1) affect as a fallback strategy; (2) affect in the driver’s seat; and (3) affect as a decision distorter. Several methods are discussed to empirically pursue the presented lines of theorizing.
{"title":"Liking or Needing? Theorizing on the Role of Affect in Network Behavior","authors":"M. van der Heijden","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Informal networks are crucial for the functioning of public organizations and the quality of government service. Because of this, public administration scholars increasingly theorize on what drives informal network behavior, particularly in terms of whom public officials contact for information or advice. However, existing studies provide a rather rational and strategic account of how such networking occurs, pointing to factors, such as preference similarity, resource availability, and social capital as its main drivers. This article critiques the microfoundations of existing theoretical models, arguing that they (a) potentially require too extensive information-processing capabilities on behalf of individual decision-makers and (b) discount the role that affect and emotive responses are likely to play in the social activity of networked interaction. In response, this article proposes three lines of theorizing on how (interpersonal) affect can be incorporated into theorizing about the network behavior of public officials: (1) affect as a fallback strategy; (2) affect in the driver’s seat; and (3) affect as a decision distorter. Several methods are discussed to empirically pursue the presented lines of theorizing.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78077821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article develops and empirically validates a conceptualization of reputation management in a public sector context. We define reputation management as management behaviors intended to identify and affect how external audiences perceive an organization, including their perceptions of what the organization is, what it strives to be, and the organization’s positive impact on society more broadly. Such behaviors include strategically communicating the organization’s vision to its most important external audiences. The empirical analysis is based on survey responses from 499 employees and 59 managers from three Danish agencies. The analysis yields support for our measure of reputation management. We conclude with a future research agenda on how our conceptualization and scale can be used to further develop Bureaucratic Reputation Theory, as well as public management research aimed at investigating the simultaneous use as well as simultaneous external and internal effects of different types of public management and leadership behaviors.
{"title":"Conceptualizing and Measuring (Public) Reputation Management","authors":"M. Pedersen, H. Salomonsen","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article develops and empirically validates a conceptualization of reputation management in a public sector context. We define reputation management as management behaviors intended to identify and affect how external audiences perceive an organization, including their perceptions of what the organization is, what it strives to be, and the organization’s positive impact on society more broadly. Such behaviors include strategically communicating the organization’s vision to its most important external audiences. The empirical analysis is based on survey responses from 499 employees and 59 managers from three Danish agencies. The analysis yields support for our measure of reputation management. We conclude with a future research agenda on how our conceptualization and scale can be used to further develop Bureaucratic Reputation Theory, as well as public management research aimed at investigating the simultaneous use as well as simultaneous external and internal effects of different types of public management and leadership behaviors.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"207 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74470465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides a detailed exploration of the collaborative architecture concept and its ability to deepen research on interorganizational collaborative arrangements. After introducing four components of collaborative architecture (goals, arenas, membership, and mechanisms), the article uses the components to compare two cases of public education reform collaborations. We investigate methodological challenges in coding and data analysis and evaluate the conceptual strengths and weaknesses of collaborative architecture, including the extent to which it lends specificity to existing frameworks for studying collaboration and collaborative governance. The article demonstrates that the collaborative architecture concept enables researchers to probe and assess important characteristics and relationships among goals, boundaries, structures, and processes of interorganizational collaboration as well as the exercise and embeddedness of partner influence.
{"title":"Collaborative Architecture: Components, Relationships, and Implications for Partner Influence","authors":"Stephen B Page, M. Stone","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article provides a detailed exploration of the collaborative architecture concept and its ability to deepen research on interorganizational collaborative arrangements. After introducing four components of collaborative architecture (goals, arenas, membership, and mechanisms), the article uses the components to compare two cases of public education reform collaborations. We investigate methodological challenges in coding and data analysis and evaluate the conceptual strengths and weaknesses of collaborative architecture, including the extent to which it lends specificity to existing frameworks for studying collaboration and collaborative governance. The article demonstrates that the collaborative architecture concept enables researchers to probe and assess important characteristics and relationships among goals, boundaries, structures, and processes of interorganizational collaboration as well as the exercise and embeddedness of partner influence.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72862133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The ability of public organizations to effectively leverage performance-enhancing interventions depends on their alignment with the institutional and motivational determinants of public sector performance and on how these are reflected in governance design choices. A mismatch between performance logics and governance design may potentially render interventions ineffective or even detrimental. In this article, we deconstruct the theoretical foundations of such a mismatch and propose an interactional causal model to examine how governance design can either effectuate or inhibit the institutional and individual motivational determinants affecting performance. In doing so, we evaluate the fitness of governance designs against public sector attributes and constraints and identify actionable managerial interventions for improving the fit. The article argues that alignment between governance design and the logics underpinning public sector performance regimes is critical for producing outcomes that are effective and consistent with the traits and value systems of the public sector.
{"title":"Enhancing the Effectiveness of Public Sector Performance Regimes: A Proposed Causal Model for Aligning Governance Design with Performance Logics","authors":"Altaf Virani, Zeger van der Wal","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The ability of public organizations to effectively leverage performance-enhancing interventions depends on their alignment with the institutional and motivational determinants of public sector performance and on how these are reflected in governance design choices. A mismatch between performance logics and governance design may potentially render interventions ineffective or even detrimental. In this article, we deconstruct the theoretical foundations of such a mismatch and propose an interactional causal model to examine how governance design can either effectuate or inhibit the institutional and individual motivational determinants affecting performance. In doing so, we evaluate the fitness of governance designs against public sector attributes and constraints and identify actionable managerial interventions for improving the fit. The article argues that alignment between governance design and the logics underpinning public sector performance regimes is critical for producing outcomes that are effective and consistent with the traits and value systems of the public sector.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73759191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Innovations in digital government are changing state–citizen interactions. While often seen as means to increase government efficiency and reduce compliance costs for citizens, a growing body of literature suggests citizens may also experience administrative burdens in such interactions. This article aims to provide some cohesion to the existing research and makes three specific contributions. First, it carves out a conceptual common ground by identifying digital administrative burdens and digital bureaucratic encounters as specific objects of study. Second, automated administrative decision making, digital interactions, and data-assisted decision making are identified as contemporary practices of particular relevance for future studies on the intersection of digital government and administrative burden. Studies suggest learning costs and psychological costs may be especially prevalent in digital bureaucratic encounters and that they often have distributive effects. Third, the article concludes with the formulation of several research themes for the further development of the field.
{"title":"Digital Administrative Burdens: An Agenda for Analyzing the Citizen Experience of Digital Bureaucratic Encounters","authors":"Rik Peeters","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac024","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Innovations in digital government are changing state–citizen interactions. While often seen as means to increase government efficiency and reduce compliance costs for citizens, a growing body of literature suggests citizens may also experience administrative burdens in such interactions. This article aims to provide some cohesion to the existing research and makes three specific contributions. First, it carves out a conceptual common ground by identifying digital administrative burdens and digital bureaucratic encounters as specific objects of study. Second, automated administrative decision making, digital interactions, and data-assisted decision making are identified as contemporary practices of particular relevance for future studies on the intersection of digital government and administrative burden. Studies suggest learning costs and psychological costs may be especially prevalent in digital bureaucratic encounters and that they often have distributive effects. Third, the article concludes with the formulation of several research themes for the further development of the field.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135693703","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Outsourcing may lead public administrators to regard service recipients as customers to be satisfied rather than as citizens demanding access and empowerment. This research investigates the extent to which social service nonprofits might bridge the gap between citizenship and customer service to advance shared values and reinforce public institutions. Due to unique institutional and organizational features, such as value-driven commitments, restrictions to financial distribution, and special knowledge of under-represented groups, social service nonprofit contractors may offer distinct advantages over for-profit firms in contract management. We begin by analyzing the conflicting and complementary aspects of citizenship and customer service in democracy and identify the advantages of nonprofit contractors. Then, using the lenses of transaction cost economics and agency theory, we explore how nonprofits can mitigate contract risks while bolstering citizenship. We present several suggestions to guide public agencies and future scholarship on reasserting the importance of public values in modern governance.
{"title":"Engaging Citizens in Government Contracting: A Theoretical Approach for the Role of Social Service Nonprofits","authors":"Gowun Park, Benjamin M. Brunjes","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Outsourcing may lead public administrators to regard service recipients as customers to be satisfied rather than as citizens demanding access and empowerment. This research investigates the extent to which social service nonprofits might bridge the gap between citizenship and customer service to advance shared values and reinforce public institutions. Due to unique institutional and organizational features, such as value-driven commitments, restrictions to financial distribution, and special knowledge of under-represented groups, social service nonprofit contractors may offer distinct advantages over for-profit firms in contract management. We begin by analyzing the conflicting and complementary aspects of citizenship and customer service in democracy and identify the advantages of nonprofit contractors. Then, using the lenses of transaction cost economics and agency theory, we explore how nonprofits can mitigate contract risks while bolstering citizenship. We present several suggestions to guide public agencies and future scholarship on reasserting the importance of public values in modern governance.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81078657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Leisha DeHart‐Davis, Melvin J. Dubnick, D. Kettl, William G. Resh, Norma M. Riccucci
{"title":"Herbert Kaufman: Celebrating a Century of Contributions to Public Administration","authors":"Leisha DeHart‐Davis, Melvin J. Dubnick, D. Kettl, William G. Resh, Norma M. Riccucci","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85511789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kimberley R. Isett, T. Bryan, Rebekah L St Clair-Sims
Power is a construct that is relevant anytime two actors come together. Typically power examinations have been focused on assessments among actors with asymmetrical power profiles. We argue existing characterizations of power are insufficient to understand perceptions of relationship quality when partners have a more balanced power profile. This is the case with an important class of partnerships—those between governments and philanthropic Foundations. We assessed power mutuality and its effects on relationship quality with a mixed methods approach, relying heavily on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis techniques and interview data. Our findings point to new insights into those power relationships typically examined in the extant literature, those with asymmetry, as well as under condition of mutuality. With regard to asymmetrical power, we point to needed investigation into the role of intangible resources, such as knowledge and legitimacy, to achieve goals, rather than the predominant focus on financial and other tangible resources. With regard to conditions of mutuality, we illustrate that mutuality yields relational ambiguity in the relationship and results in partner tension. Furthermore, our study finds that under conditions of mutuality, resource contributions from the benefactor need to address instrumental organizational needs, not just needs that contribute to mission outcomes.
{"title":"Ambiguity among Partners: Understanding Power and Perception Under Conditions of Mutuality","authors":"Kimberley R. Isett, T. Bryan, Rebekah L St Clair-Sims","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Power is a construct that is relevant anytime two actors come together. Typically power examinations have been focused on assessments among actors with asymmetrical power profiles. We argue existing characterizations of power are insufficient to understand perceptions of relationship quality when partners have a more balanced power profile. This is the case with an important class of partnerships—those between governments and philanthropic Foundations. We assessed power mutuality and its effects on relationship quality with a mixed methods approach, relying heavily on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis techniques and interview data. Our findings point to new insights into those power relationships typically examined in the extant literature, those with asymmetry, as well as under condition of mutuality. With regard to asymmetrical power, we point to needed investigation into the role of intangible resources, such as knowledge and legitimacy, to achieve goals, rather than the predominant focus on financial and other tangible resources. With regard to conditions of mutuality, we illustrate that mutuality yields relational ambiguity in the relationship and results in partner tension. Furthermore, our study finds that under conditions of mutuality, resource contributions from the benefactor need to address instrumental organizational needs, not just needs that contribute to mission outcomes.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89011279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
What is the purpose of the applied study of government? In this essay, I lay out one response—that scholars of this topic should help in the job of what I characterize as embedding institutions of public-sector change. Public institutions offer the key means to direct governance, but at the same time also risk becoming sclerotic, failing to adapt to public concerns. How can academics help resolve this duality, matching public values to contemporary challenges? First, we as scholars can play a role in purposeful problem framing. Second, we can study and document related behavior and empirical outcomes. Finally, we can design solutions. I illustrate these processes with examples from my own research, discussing performance management, administrative burdens, and public personnel systems.
{"title":"How Can Scholars Help to Embed Institutions of Public-Sector Change? (Or Things I Wish I’d Known When I Was a Grad Student)","authors":"D. Moynihan","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 What is the purpose of the applied study of government? In this essay, I lay out one response—that scholars of this topic should help in the job of what I characterize as embedding institutions of public-sector change. Public institutions offer the key means to direct governance, but at the same time also risk becoming sclerotic, failing to adapt to public concerns. How can academics help resolve this duality, matching public values to contemporary challenges? First, we as scholars can play a role in purposeful problem framing. Second, we can study and document related behavior and empirical outcomes. Finally, we can design solutions. I illustrate these processes with examples from my own research, discussing performance management, administrative burdens, and public personnel systems.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81675739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Grounded theory as a term and as a methodology has received increasing attention from public administration scholars since the mid-2000s. Unfortunately, the application of grounded theory methodology across social science research—including public and nonprofit administration—is often shrouded in vagueness; however, rigorously conducted grounded theory research, particularly classic ground theory, holds great potential to develop theory that is relevant to practice. This article seeks to provide clarity on grounded theory methodology by detailing it through the lens of classic grounded theory methodology (i.e., the foundational methodology). Additionally, the authors examine the interpretation and application of grounded theory methodology through a conceptual content analysis of top public administration journals. The analysis reveals scholars either do not have a clear understanding of grounded theory methodology or needs to improve their reporting of such, as the theory development process is not clearly reported. Insight on directions forward to improve the rigor of grounded theory research in the field is offered, including adhering to established methodology.
{"title":"Articulating Grounded Theory Methodology for Public and Nonprofit Administration Scholars and Practitioners","authors":"Joseph A. Hafer, Jessica Kitchens","doi":"10.1093/ppmgov/gvac018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Grounded theory as a term and as a methodology has received increasing attention from public administration scholars since the mid-2000s. Unfortunately, the application of grounded theory methodology across social science research—including public and nonprofit administration—is often shrouded in vagueness; however, rigorously conducted grounded theory research, particularly classic ground theory, holds great potential to develop theory that is relevant to practice. This article seeks to provide clarity on grounded theory methodology by detailing it through the lens of classic grounded theory methodology (i.e., the foundational methodology). Additionally, the authors examine the interpretation and application of grounded theory methodology through a conceptual content analysis of top public administration journals. The analysis reveals scholars either do not have a clear understanding of grounded theory methodology or needs to improve their reporting of such, as the theory development process is not clearly reported. Insight on directions forward to improve the rigor of grounded theory research in the field is offered, including adhering to established methodology.","PeriodicalId":29947,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Public Management and Governance","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73147679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：