\n In your original thread discuss the following:\n <\/p>\n
\n Integrate biblical principles in your initial thread.\n <\/p>\n
\n Please review the\u00a0Discussion Assignment Instructions\u00a0Download Discussion Assignment Instructions\u00a0prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric.\n <\/p>\n
\n Post-First:\u00a0This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussions. This means you will only be able to read and interact with your classmates\u2019 threads after you have submitted your thread in response to the provided prompt.\n <\/p>\n
\n Submit your thread by 4:00 p.m. (ET) on Thursday\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In your original thread discuss the following: Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future.The challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this
\nPADM 610 Discussion Assignment Instructions You will complete 3 Discussions in this course. You will post one thread of at least 400\u2013500 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of the assigned Module: Week. You must then post 2 replies of at least 200-250 words by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of the assigned Module: Week. For each thread, you must support your assertions with ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the module: week in APA format. Each reply must incorporate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week in APA format. Any sources cited must have been published within the last five years. Acceptable sources include the textbook, the Bible, and peer reviewed sources.
\nIn your original thread discuss the following: Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future.The challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this
\n 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 Kim 1&Seung-Hyun Han 2 Published online: 28 December 2016 #Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016 Abstract This study investigates the relationship between public officials \u2019perceptions 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 \u2014clan, market, hierarchy, and adhocracy \u2014differentially affect their job attitude s. In addition, the findings show the mediating influence of job satisfaction between public officials \u2019perceptions 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 \u2013175 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 [email\u00a0protected] 1 Korea University, Seoul, South Korea 2 University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA understand the effects of employees\u2019attitudes 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;Ngetal. 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 \u2019job 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 \u2019perception 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\u2014to 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)\u2014 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 \u2019s( 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 \u2019Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 159 Not all researchers define culture as the\u2018thing \u2019that 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;Hartnelletal. 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 \u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u2014internal\/external focus and flexibility\/stability \u2014sheds light on how culture might influence employees \u2019attitudes (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. AccordingtoMowdayetal.( 1982), OC includes employees \u2019acceptance 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 \u2019s( 1990 ) definition of OC, which is one of the most commonly referred to in recent studies, examines three components of commitment 1\u2014 affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment \u2014only one of which focuses on employees \u2019acceptance 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;Mowdayetal. 1982). Based on empirical evidence of affective commitment as the strongest and the most consistent 1B Affective commitment refers to the employee \u2019s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involve- ment in the organization \u2026Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization \u2026Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. ^(Meyer and Allen 1997,p.11). Civil Servants\u2019Perceived 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 \u2019sjob, ^which results from employees \u2019job experiences (Locke 1976, p. 1300). Additionally, Ivancevich et al. ( 2007 ) point out that JS reflects employees \u2019perception 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 \u2019personal characteristics and job characteristics such as pay, promotion, job design, and having influence over goal setting (Agho et al. 1993;O\u2019Leary-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 \u2019job 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 \u2019s( 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 \u2019s( 1983 ) Organizational Culture Index to measure organizational cultures 2have found that strong perceived bureaucratic cultures negatively affect employees \u2019JS and OC, whereas cultures valuing innovation and people in the organization positively influence employees \u2019job attitudes (Lok and 2Wa l l a c h \u2019s( 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. Crawford2001;Odometal. 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 \u2019attitudes 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;Mowdayetal. 1982;Reichers 1985)orthatitplaysaroleasan 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 \u2019s ( 1991 ) three-component model of OC, Clugston ( 2000) found that OC played a partially mediating role between JS and employees \u2019intent 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. 3That is, the ministries that were not merged were excluded from the data set. The survey was conducted by the 3To ensure confidentiality as requested, we will not reveal actual name of the ministry here. Civil Servants \u2019Perceived 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 \u201329 age group, 37.5 % were in the 30 \u201339 age group, 40.8 % were in the 40 \u201349 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 \u2019job 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 = \u22120.3547, p> .10 for gender ratio; z = \u22120.6857, p> .10 for manager ratio) (Table 2). The survey used three instruments to measure the constructs in our conceptual framework. All instruments have previous ly shown acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Perceived organizational c ulture was measured using the 16 items of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) 4(Cameron and Quinn Ta b l e 1 Sample demographic data Variables Values Frequency Percentage Gender Male 26763.4 Female 15236.1 Age 20s 286.7 30s 20448.5 40s 13832.8 50s 5011.8 Job rank 3rd grade or higher 6 1.4 4th grade 4410.5 5th grade 14334.0 6th grade or lower 218 51.8 Seniority 5 years of less 109 25.9 6 ~ 10 years 8420.0 11 ~ 15 years 8420.0 16 ~ 20 years 6315.0 20 years or more 76 18.0 421 100 4Since 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\u2014dominant characteristics, orga- nizational leadership, organizational glue, management of employees \u2014were mea- sured. To measure affective commitment, Allen and Meyer \u2019s( 1990)Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) items were used. The items focus on employees \u2019 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 \u2019overall JS such as general satisfaction, internal work motivation, and growth satisfaction, and employees \u2019 satisfaction with specific job facets \u2014job 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 3shows 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 ( \u03b1) coefficients (Cronbach 1951; Cronbach and Shavelson 2004), and Ta b l e 2Descriptive analysis and inter-construct correlation coefficients MSDAVE123456 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 \u2019Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 165 factor loadings from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were all examined. Table2shows inter-construct correlations and Cronbach \u03b1coefficients 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 \u03b1 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). 5The 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- 5Although 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. Ta b l e 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 4.5 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-fitindex (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 4shows estimated path coefficients and t he 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 Ta b l e 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 0.02Clan 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 \u2019Perceived 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 \u2265 |1.96|) was applied (Kline 2010). Figure 4shows that not all types of perceived organizational culture have a significant effect on employees \u2019attitudes. In particular, a non-significant direct paths were found for the adhocracy culture ( \u03b3 1=\u2212.23; |t| = 1.08 and \u03b3 2= 0.26; |t| = 1.37). Employees \u2019perceptions of clan and hierarchy culture in their organizations have a statically significant direct effect on both JS ( \u03b3 5= 1.16; |t| = 6.07 and\u03b3 7=\u2212.50; |t| = 3.33, respectively) and OC ( \u03b3 6=\u22120.45; |t| = 2.77 and \u03b3 8= 0.86; |t| = 6.84, respectively). Market culture perceived by individuals do not have a significantly negative effect on JS ( \u03b3 3= 0.06; |t| = 0.29), but do have a significantly negative effect on employees \u2019OC ( \u03b3 4= 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 5shows that employees \u2019perceptions 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 ( \u03b2 1= .60; |t| = 17.82), overall JS plays mediating role in the relationship between organizational culture and employees \u2019 OC. Table 6shows 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\u2019attitude. Overall, our findings showed that different attributes of organizational culture differently affect JS and OC. Perceived values of clan culture positively affect employees \u2019JS, but negatively affect employees \u2019 commitment to their organization in terms of the direct effect, whereas perceived attributes of hierarchy culture negatively influence employees \u2019JS 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 \u2019perception of clan culture decreases the level of OC Ta b l e 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 ( \u2212.50)*(.60) = \u2212.30 .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\u2014competition and a result-orientation \u2014appear to negatively affect employees \u2019commitment. 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 \u2019attitudes (Howard 1998). Our finding that attributes of the different cultures differently affect employees \u2019job 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 Ta b l e 6 Summary of hypothesis tests Hypotheses Results Support H1a: Adhocracy \u2192JS Not significant No Adhocracy \u2192OC Not significant H1b: Clan \u2192JS Positive Yes Clan \u2192OC Positive (Directly negative but positive in total effects) H1c: Hierarchy \u2192JS Negative Partially Hierarchy \u2192OC Positive H1d: Market \u2192JS Not significant Partially Market \u2192OC Negative H2: JS mediates the relationship between perceived organizational culture and OC Ye s Civil Servants \u2019Perceived 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\u2019 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 \u2019job 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 \u2019tasks 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 \u2019perceptions 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., Gaertner1999; 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 \u2019perception 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 \u2019job attitudes in a Korean central agency in the context of the NPM Reform. The findings indicate that employees \u2019perception of attributes of organizational culture differentially affect employees \u2019job attitudes. Moreover, the findings provide additional empirical support for the proposition that JS precedes employees \u2019OC 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 \u2019job 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 \u2019Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 171 AcknowledgmentsThe 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\u20131027. 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\u2013683. 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\u201318. 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\u2013158. Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71 (2), 167\u2013185. 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\u2013205. 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\u2013911. 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\u2013546. Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to effective- ness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5 ,23\u201358. 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\u2013464. doi: 10.1177\/0170840605050875 . Clugston, M. (2000). The mediating effects of multidimens ional commitment on job satisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (4), 477\u2013486. 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\u201360 5. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297\u2013334. 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\u2013418. 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\u2013295. doi: 10.1002\/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275 ::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C . 172 Kim J.S., Han S.-H. Farh, J. L., Hackett, R., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceivedorganizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the effects of power distance and Traditionality. The Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 715\u2013729. 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\u2013388. 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\u2013493. 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 \u201368. Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M. L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: public, non-profit, and for-profit. Public Personnel Management, 31 (2), 201\u2013210. 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 \u2013679. doi: 10.1016\/j.jbusres.2008.05.021 . Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. JournalofApplied Psychology, 60 (2), 159\u2013170. 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\u2013382. 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\u2013304. 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 \u2019s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4), 677\u2013694. 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\u201326. 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\u2013253. Huang, T., & Hsiao, W. (2007). The causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commit- ment. S ocial Behavior and Personality, 35 (9), 1265\u20131276. 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\u2013475. 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\u2013407. 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 \u2019s public sector. Public Organization Review, 14 (3), 397\u2013417. 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\u2013613. doi: 10.1108\/EUM0000000006302 . Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18 (3), 219 \u2013236. 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\u2013196. doi: 10.1080\/10967491003756682 . Civil Servants\u2019Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 173 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\u201389. 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\u2013551. doi: 10.1037\/0021-9010.78.4.538 . Meyer, J. P., Hecht, T. D., Gill, H., & Toplonytsky, L. (2010). Person \u2013organization (culture) fit and employee commitment under conditions of organizational change: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76 (3), 458\u2013473. 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\u2013292. 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 \u2013233. 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\u2013 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\u2013346. 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\u2013796. O \u2019Leary-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\u2013169. 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\u2013309. 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\u2013141. doi: 10.1108\/09513550010338773 . Pe dhazur, 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\u2013396. 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\u2013177. 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\u2013140. 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\u2013476. Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2), 472\u2013481. 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\u2013566. doi:10.1177\/014920630202800404 . Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43 (4), 395 \u2013407. 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\u201368. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109\u2013119. 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. 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\u201324. 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 \u2013599. doi: 10.1108\/01437730410561477 . Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizat ions and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (3), 251\u2013270. 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\u2013838. 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\u2013293. 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\u2013638. 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\u2013167. 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\u201367. Wallace, J. E. (1995). Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2), 228\u2013255. doi: 10.2307\/2393637 . Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: the cultural match. Training and Development Journal, 37 (2), 28\u2013 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\u2013231. 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\u201390 . 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 \u2019job attitudes, employees \u2019work-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 \u2019Perceived Organizational Culture & Job Attitudes 175 R epro duce d w ith p erm is sio n o f th e c o pyrig ht o w ner. F urth er r e pro ductio n p ro hib ite d w ith out p erm is sio n.
\nIn your original thread discuss the following: Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future.The challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this
\n Public Management Research Association Toward a Relevant Agenda for a Responsive Public Administration Author(syf 7 K R P D V $ % U H r Source: Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 2007yf S S 0 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Public Management Research Association Stable URL: https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/25096332 Accessed: 12-12-2022 01:25 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 [email\u00a0protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https:\/\/about.jstor.org\/terms 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 (2001yf K D V F K D U D F W H U L ] H G W K e 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 1997yf . 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 [email\u00a0protected] 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: [email\u00a0protected] This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1989yf Z K L O H W K e contribution should be related to “social and organizational reality” (La Porte 1971, 18yf . 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 (2004yf Z K o 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 (1956yf \/ L J K W f, and recent work by McGinn and Patterson (2005yf . D X I P D Q H [ D P L Q H V W K H K L V W R U L F D O G H Y H O R S P H Q W R f 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 (1997yf H [ S O R U H V I R X U W L G H V R I D G P L Q L V W U D W L Y H U H I R U P W K D W F D S W X U H W K H H V V H Q F H R f 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 (2005yf Q R W L Q W K H L U V X E V W D Q F H E X W L Q W K H L r 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” (930yf 7 K H L U I R F X V P X F K O L N H W K H I R F X V K H U H L V R n This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1981yf + R Z W K H y 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 1995yf , 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, 1997yf D Q G O H V V F R P S O H [ % R L V R W D Q G & K L O d 1999yf Z K L O H S R W H Q W L D O O O R V L Q J V R P H V L J K W R I L P S R U W D Q W G L V W L Q F W L R Q V E H W Z H H Q D Q G Z L W K L n categories (Yanow 2003yf ) R U H [ D P S O H < D Q R Z f 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, 1997yf G H V F U L E H s 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 1997yf . Three ethical perspectives?control centered, discretionary, and deliberative (Adams and Balfour 2004yf ” O H D Y H D G P L Q L V W U D W R U V Z L W K S R W H Q W L D O O F R P S H W L Q J H W K L F D O R E O L J D W L R Q V , 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 2004yf 7 K e 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 1987yf . This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 2000yf L Q W H U Q D O V W D Q G D U G V R I F R Q G X F W ) U L H G U L F K f, and in Weber’s terms, sine ira ac studio (without bias or scornyf $ G D P V D Q G % D O I R X U f. 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, 1990yf R I I H U V H T X L W R U M X V W L F H D V D Q D S S U R S U L D W H R U L H Q W D W L R Q I R U S X E O L F D G P L Q L V W U a tors. Cooper (1991yf R I I H U V F L W L ] H Q V K L S E H K D Y L R U D V W K H D S S U R S U L D W H G R P L Q D Q W H W K L F D O R U L H n 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 (2004yf R I I H U W K D W D W W H Q W L R Q Q H H G s 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 (1991yf G H V F U L E H V D Q G R S H U D W L R Q D O L ] H G I R U S X E O L F D G P L Q L V W U D W L R Q E y Cooper (1987yf 2 E O L J D W L R Q V D Q G L Q W H U Q D O J R R G V D U H V R F L D O O F R Q V W U X F W H G D Q G D L P W R D F K L H Y e excellence. As Adams and Balfour (2004yf G H V F U L E H E X L O G L Q J D F R P P X Q L W G H Y H O R S V S X E O L c 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 (1994yf Z K R R E V H U Y H V W K D W U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V P D L n 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 (1994yf R I I H U V D Q D O W H U Q D W L Y H E D V H G L Q G H P R F U D W L F Y D O X H s 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 (2002yf Z K R I R F X V H V V S H F L I L F D O O R Q W K H L Q F U H D V L Q g 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1900yf 7 K H G L F W D W H G U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V L Q W K L V Z D F D P H W R E H G H I D F W R G L F W D W H G . 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 (1948yf Z D V S H U K D S V W K H P R V W L Q I O X H Q W L D O L Q T X H s 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1997yf . 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 2001yf + D U G Z L U L Q J R f 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 1997yf . 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 1992yf 6 H H Q L Q W K L V O L J K W E u 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 1984yf . 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 1985yf $ Q H W K L F D O G H F L V L R Q L V R Q e 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 (2004yf F R Q V L G H U W K H V H L V V X H V L Q W H U P V R f 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 labelsyf R I W K H H [ W H Q W W R Z K L F K W K H G H V H U Y H V H U Y L F H V D Q G E H Q H I L W V ) R U L Q V W D Q F H F R Q V L G H U W K e 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, 162yf . The New Public Administration (Marini 1971yf I R U P H G W K H E D V L V R I W K L V Z D R I W K L Q k ing, with an ultimate goal of equity. Frederickson (1971, 1990yf G H I L Q H V H T X L W D V G L I I H r 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 1994yf , Q W H U P V R f 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 2003yf + H U H L W L V W K R X J K W W K R X J K Q R W H P S L U L F D O O Y H U L I L H G X Q D m 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1996yf . The ideas of New Public Management entered practice in the United States through popular books on reinventing government (Osborne and Gaebler 1992yf W K U R X J K I H G H U D l 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 2000yf ) R U H [ D P S O H * L X O L D Q L f 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 1992yf 9 L J R G D * D G R W f 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 (2002yf G H V F U L E H V W K H H Y R O X W L R Q R I S X E O L F D G P L Q L V W U D W L R Q D V P R Y L Q J I U R m 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 1998yf D Q G F R O O D E R U D W L Y H X Q G H U W D N L Q J V $ J U D Q R I I D Q G 0 F * X L U H ; Kathi and Cooper 2005yf ) R U L Q V W D Q F H W K H \/ H D U Q L Q J D Q G ‘ H V L J Q ) R U X P . D W K L D Q G & R R S H r 2005yf L Q V W L W X W H G L Q W K H F L W R I \/ R V $ Q J H O H V V H H N V W R E X L O G W U X V W D Q G V K D U H G X Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J R f common social concerns between city agencies and city neighborhood councils. Another example is AmericaSpeaks (Lukensmeyer and Torres 2006yf Z K L F K L V D O D U J H V F D O H F L W L ] H n 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 1991yf . 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 (1995yf L Q W K H L U T X H V W I R U G L V F R X U V H D U J X H W K D W S X U V X L Q J D V W U D W H J R f “many talk” is not realistic. Rather, administrators should facilitate discourse among few, rather than many. The few are what Cobb and Elder (1983yf F R Q V L G H U W R E H W K H F H Q W U D O J U R X S , 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 1991yf Z K L O H D O V R P H H W L Q J W K H R W K H U R E O L J D W L R Q V W K D W H [ L V W L Q W K H H Q Y L U R Q P H Q W : 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 2002yf D Q G W K H T X H V W I R U U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V W R F R P S H W L Q J R E O L J D W L R Q s in this collaborative environment might enable both greater responsiveness and more collaboration (Vigoda-Gadot 2003yf . 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 1981yf E X W D O V R R Q W K H E H K D Y L R U V R U D F W L R Q V R I R Q H V H O I D Q G W K H R W K H U S D U W L H V ‘ U X F N P D Q D Q d Harris 1990yf . Along these lines, Druckman (1977yf G L V F X V V H V W Z R W S H V R I U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V L Q D E D r 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 (1992yf F R Q V L G H U V W K H G H F O L Q L Q J Z R U W K R I Q H X W U D O F R P S H W H Q F H D V L W P L J K t 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 1992yf D Q G F X O P L Q D W L Q J L Q W K H D G P L Q L V W U D W L Y H S U H V L G H Q F 1 D W K D n 1975yf \/ H J L V O D W R U V V H H N F R Q W U R O W K U R X J K K D U G Z L U L Q J 0 R H f and the passage of new administrative procedures (Baila 1998yf . This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/about.jstor.org\/terms 490 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory On this latter point, Baila (1998yf V K R Z V L Q K L V V W X G R I W K H + H D O W K & D U H ) L Q D Q F L Q g 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 (1998yf H [ S O R U H W K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S E H W Z H H Q G L U H F W R U G H U V L Q W H U S U H W H G W K U R X J K V W D W e 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 (1992yf I L Q G V W K D W E X U H D X F U D W V L Q W Z R I H G H U D O D J H Q F L H s 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: (1yf H [ L W I U R P W K H R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q L I W K H F R Q W U R l attempted is objectionable, (2yf X V H Y R L F H W R V W D W H K R Z F R Q W U R O D W W H P S W H G L V R E M H F W L R Q D E O H f show loyalty to the President, regardless of the control attempted, or (4yf V K R Z Q H J O H F W E y 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 (2005yf 7 K H D W W H P S W W R G L V H Q W D Q J O e 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 membersyf Z D s 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 (1992yf . Other literature is more concerned with purposive responsiveness. The Governor’s Branch Offices documented by Vosburgh and Hyman (1973yf S U R Y L G H D Q H [ D P S O H I R U K R w 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 ofyf W K H Z H O I D U H V V W H P R U W K H H P S O R P H Q W V H F X U L W V V W H P R U D Q R W K H r system. You are now an advocate for the person who comes into the Governor’s Branch Offices with a problem” (Vosburgh and Hyman 1973, 438yf . 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 2003yf & H Q W U D O L Q W K L V O L W H U D W X U H L V Z K H W K H U K R Z D Q G W R Z K D W H [ W H Q W S D V V L Y e representation” turns into “active representation.” Passive representation is the demo graphic character of members of the bureaucracy, as compared to the general population. Rohr (1986yf D U J X H V W K D W V X F K S D V V L Y H U H S U H V H Q W D W L R Q K H D O V D P D M R U G H I H F W L Q W K H & R Q V W L W u 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 (2003yf I L Q G W K D W E X U H D X F U D W V D U H P R U H O L N H O W R E H D F W L Y H U H S U H V H n 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 1998yf D W P X O W L S O H O H Y H O s of a multilevel governance system (Meier, O’Toole, and Nicholson-Crotty 2004yf 7 K D t 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 2003yf . 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, 77yf 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, 76yf . Romzek and Hendricks (1982yf V X J J H V W L Q F R Q F O X V L R Q W K D W W K H F K D O O H Q J H L V I R U D J H Q F L H s 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 (1983yf U H F R J Q L ] H W K H E R X Q G H G O U D W L R Q D O F K D U D F W H U R I D G P L Q L V W U D W R U V D Q G W K X s 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 (1981yf H [ D P L Q H V E X U H D X F U D W L F U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V L Q W Z R X U E D n 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 (1978yf V L P L O D U O I L Q G W K D W D U H I R U P J R Y H U Q P H Q W V W U X F W X U H , 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 (1988yf D G G U H V V W K H F R Q F H U Q W K D W D S U R I H V V L R Q D O L ] H G E X U H D X F U D F Z L O O E H U H V S R Q V L Y H W o 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. (1977yf R I I H U W K D W U H V S R Q V H V E S X E O L F D J H Q F L H V W R F L W L ] H Q L Q L W L D W H G F R Q W D F W V P D Y D U y 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 2004yf 1 H [ W W R E H F R Q V L G H U H G L V D Y D U L D Q W R I U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V W K D W L V I U H H I U R P W K e kinds of constraints discussed here, except for the underlying rationale of customer satisfaction. This content downloaded from 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 2001yf 7 K L V V D P H J U R X S S U R G X F H G D O R Q J H U Z R U N , though touching on the same or similar themes as the original collection (White and Newcomer 2005yf . O L W J D D U G D Q G \/ L J K W f 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 2000yf 3 U L Y D W H V H F W R U S H U I R U P D Q F e measurement and management practices have been shown to apply well to government, such as the balanced scorecard (Whittaker 2001yf Z K L F K U H T X L U H V W K D W D J H Q F L H V P H D V X U e 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 (2002yf V H H N V W R X Q G H U V W D Q G W K H F X s 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 1998yf . 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 1999yf 9 D U L R X V K R Z W R J X L G H V S R L Q W W K H Z D I R U S X E O L F D J H Q F L H V W R V X c cessfully measure their performance and assess citizen satisfaction (Hatry et al. 1998; Hatry 1999yf . Cope (1997yf F R Q V L G H U V U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V L Q W K H H Q W U H S U H Q H X U L D O F R Q W H [ W E X W G R H V Q R t 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 (1997yf Q L F H O O H D G V L Q W R D G L V F X V V L R Q R I F R O O D E R U D W L Y H U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V R U , more simply collaboration. Collaborative and Negotiated Responsiveness Vigoda (2002yf V X J J H V W V W K D W R Q F H F R O O D E R U D W L R Q E H W Z H H Q D G P L Q L V W U D W R U V D Q G F L W L ] H Q V L s 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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, 125yf . In the collaborative and deliberative context, Roberts (1997yf H [ D P L Q H V Z K D W V K H F D O O s 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 (2002yf . 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 2005yf 3 D S H U V S U H V H Q W H G D Q G S X E O L V K H G L Q W K e 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 2005yf . 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 2002yf 7 K L V V K L I W K R Z H Y H U L V O L N H O W R E H P R U e challenging for administrators, who have multiple other obligations and constraints as discussed thus far. According to Vigoda (2002, 538yf , Q W K H F R P L Q J G H F D G H V > S X E O L c 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 (1997yf D Q G . D W K L D Q G & R R S H U f as more of a negotiation. Research on this gray area between responsiveness to customers\/clients (along with the various constraints on action and behavioryf D Q G F R O O D E R U D W L R Q Z L W K F L W L ] H Q V L V Q R t 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 (1997yf R E V H U Y H V K R Z S X E O L F D J H Q F H [ H F X W L Y H V D U H P R U H O L N H O W R V H F X U H W K H L U D X W R Q R P y 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 (2002yf Z K R R E V H U Y H G K R Z H [ S H U L H Q W L D O N Q R Z O H G J H R I Z D W H U P H Q L Q 0 D U O D Q G 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 (2004yf Z K R R E V H U Y H V K R Z W K H L G H D O V R f 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 (1997yf G L V F X V V H V K R Z U H J X O D W R U y 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1997yf 8 Q W L O V X F K P H F K D Q L V P V R U R W K H U V R O X W L R Q V D U H G L V F R Y H U H G D Q G D S S O L H G L n 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 2002yf D Q G I U R P V S H F L I L F U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V W R J H Q H U D O U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V & R S H f. 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 2004yf E H W Z H H Q Y D O X H V D Q G R E O L J D W L R Q s 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 (2004yf G H V F U L E H V L W L V Z K D W P L J K W E H R I P R V W L Q W H U H V W L Q W K L s 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 (1948yf D G P L Q L V W U D W L Y H V W D W e concept, which connotes the idea that public administration is at the center of the policy making and implementation arenas. Kathi and Cooper (2005yf D V N W K H T X H V W L R Q R I K R Z W K e 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 1991yf W K X s 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 1978yf & R O O D E R U D W L Y H U H V S R Q V L Y H Q H V V Z K L F K F D Q E H H [ S O R U H G W K U R X J K W K H R U L H V R I O H D U Q L Q J , 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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/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 162.237.206.47 on Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:25:02 UTC All use subject to https:\/\/about.jstor.org\/terms
\nIn your original thread discuss the following: Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future.The challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this
\n Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/action\/journalInformation?journalCode=rrpa20 International Review of Public Administration ISSN: 1229-4659 (Print) 2331-7795 (Online) Journal homepage: https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/loi\/rrpa20 The New Public Management in hybrid settings: New challenges for performance measures Deborah Agostino & Michela Arnaboldi To cite this article: Deborah Agostino & Michela Arnaboldi (2015) The New Public Management in hybrid settings: New challenges for performance measures , International Review of Public Administration, 20:4, 353-369, DOI: 10.1080\/12294659.2015.1088686 To link to this article: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/12294659.2015.1088686 Published online: 17 Dec 2015.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 757View related articles View Crossmark dataCiting articles: 7 View citing articles 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) de\ufb01ned under the New Public Management (NPM) logic\ufb01t 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,\ufb01ts 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 ef\ufb01ciency, 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\ufb01rst introduced. *Corresponding author. Email: [email\u00a0protected] \u00a9 2015 The Korean Association for Public Administration International Review of Public Administration, 2015 Vol. 20, No. 4, 353\u2013369, 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 & L\u00e6greid, 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 af\ufb01rm that performance measure- ment alone is not suf\ufb01cient 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 de\ufb01ned under the NPM logic\ufb01t 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\ufb01rst 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\ufb01nal aim of improving the ef\ufb01ciency and effectiveness of public services (Hood, 1991 ,1995 ). These private sector techniques are said to reinvent government by\u2018lessening 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\u2019(Hood, 1995 , p. 94). Following this de\ufb01nition and the existing public administration practices and studies in this\ufb01eld (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,\u2018by quantifying goals and measuring whether they are achieved, organizations 354D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi reduce and eliminate ambiguity and confusion about objectives, and gain coherence and focus in pursuit of their mission\u2019(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 de\ufb01nition, an NPM-based PMS can be explored in terms of two key dimensions: metrics and methods (see Table 1). The\ufb01rst 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 ef\ufb01ciency, effectiveness, and economy, also known as the 3E\u2019s (Jackson & Palmer, 1992 ). Ef\ufb01ciency 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 speci\ufb01c\u2018object of control\u2019, also de\ufb01ned 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 de\ufb01ned as\u2018top-down\u2019, with reference to\u2018a dominant concern for enhancing control and upwards accountability\u2019 Table 1. Characteristics of an NPM-based PMS. PMS characteristics NPM-based PMS Metrics Unit of analysis Organization Performance dimensions Ef\ufb01ciency, effectiveness, economy, equity Methods Approach to performance planning and controlHierarchical Auditing approach Formalized International Review of Public Administration355 (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 de\ufb01ning 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 de\ufb01ned. It has been stated that\u2018a main goal of the NPM and reinvention-style reforms was to introduce a strategic\u201cclarity of task and purpose\u201dto public organizations through a variety of organizational reforms\u2019(Moynihan & Pandey, 2004 , p. 426). These reforms had implications on how PMS can assist in the implementation of a clear hierar- chical structure with de\ufb01ned 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 )de\ufb01nes audit as the\u2018control of control\u2019since \u2018auditors began to experience a wave of formalized and detailed checking up on what they do\u2019(Power, 1997 , p. 3). Accordingly, audit procedures affect not only substantive activities, or what it is called\ufb01nancial 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\ufb01rst 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 de\ufb01ning a\u2018new phenomena produced out of two or more elements normally found separately\u2019(Miller, Kurunm\u00e4ki, & O\u2019Learly, 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 ef\ufb01cient, 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) 356D. 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\ufb01rst 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,\u2018intense 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\u2019(Kurunm\u00e4ki & 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 speci\ufb01c 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, ef\ufb01ciency, 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\ufb01t modern hybrid realities. Speci\ufb01cally, two research questions are addressed: What are the problems of adoptingInternational Review of Public Administration357 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 of\ufb01cial 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 con\ufb01dentiality ) 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\ufb01rst 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 358D. 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\ufb01rst carried out with two representatives from the Region, then with eleven mobility managers of the Provinces and Municipalities, and\ufb01nally, 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 ef\ufb01ciency, effectiveness, and equity, to be collected from each organizational actor in the system. Table 2syn- 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. Ef\ufb01ciency 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 organizationalInternational Review of Public Administration359 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 speci\ufb01c 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\ufb01rst limitation appeared when the Region wanted to understand the bene\ufb01ts 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\u2019 relationships and cooperation. By introducing two units of analysis, at organizational level and at whole network level, the Region\u2019s 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 Ef\ufb01ciency 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 360D. 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\u2013Transport 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 speci\ufb01c transport node. It\u2019s important that passengers on my bus-line arrive in time and don\u2019t lose their connection because our timetables don\u2019t match up. No timetable has turned up as the other providers don\u2019t 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\u2013Transport Provider C). This scant cooperation underlines the\ufb01rst 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\u2019relationships 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 ef\ufb01ciency, 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 signi\ufb01cant aspect of the network that of resource integration, understood as the available network resources in terms of the actors\u2019interconnections. 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\ufb01nally to the service providers. The process of performance planning and control followed a speci\ufb01c pathway. The Region set the metrics and International Review of Public Administration361 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\ufb02ow. 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 de\ufb01ning the indicators to be included in PMS. In this respect, one of them argued that: They selected the measures without asking us\u2013the 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- \ufb01ed subjectively (CFO\u2013Transport Provider B). Other providers further criticized the Region\u2019s 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 de\ufb01nition. (CFO\u2013Transport 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\u2019 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\u2018paper- pushers\u2019(interviewee\u2019s 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\u2013 Daphne Region). A more severe criticism about performance auditing came from transport service users, one stating: 362D. 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\u2019t think I can\ufb01nd 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\u2019s 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\u2013Users\u2019association). 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 recon\ufb01gured 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 ef\ufb01ciency, 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 dif\ufb01culty of using the system to evaluate the actors\u2019cooperation 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 de\ufb01ned 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\ufb01rst 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 limitedInternational Review of Public Administration363 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\u2019interconnec- 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\u2019individual experience shared through emails and social channels. This relational and participative PMS was not de\ufb01ned 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 3compares the NPM-based PMS with the emergent relational and participative PMS. Conclusions This study investigated the\ufb01t 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 de\ufb01ned (Hood, 1991 ; Jackson & Palmer, 1992 ; Pollanen, 2005 ; Verbeeten, 2008 ). From this de\ufb01nition, 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 PMSRelational and participative PMS Metrics Control unit Organization and whole systemRelationships Performance dimension Ef\ufb01ciency, effectiveness, equityResource Integration Methods Approach to performance planning and controlHierarchical Participative Auditing approach Formalized Informal 364D. 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 identi\ufb01cation 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, \ufb01nally, 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\ufb01ndings provide contributions for both academic and practitioners. From an academic perspective, three main areas are enhanced. The\ufb01rst one concerns the identi\ufb01cation 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\ufb01t 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\u2019motivation 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\ufb01t the new reality of hybrid structures. The proposed PMS supports the idea that the speci\ufb01c 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 speci\ufb01cally 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. Speci\ufb01cally, the proposed PMS underlines the importance to move away from top- down network evaluation by endorsing participative approaches based on actors\u2019 involvement in order to obtain these new network measures. This participative approach can provide bene\ufb01ts, not only in terms of reliability of the collected data, but International Review of Public Administration365 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\u2019motivation, but it should be revised by considering the speci\ufb01c 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\u2019data on the basis of their everyday experience with the public service. This\ufb01nd- 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\u2019reports 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\u2019involvement 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 ef\ufb01- 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\ufb01ndings 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. 366D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi Notes on contributors Deborah Agostinois Assistant Professor at Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering. Her research interests cover mainly two areas. The\ufb01rst area is related to performance management in public networks, with a speci\ufb01c 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 inPublic Management Review,European Management JournalandPublic Relations Review. Email: [email\u00a0protected] Michela Arnaboldiis 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 inAccounting Organizations and Society,Financial AccountabilityandManagement Accounting Research. Email: [email\u00a0protected] 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).\u2018Naming the Rose\u2019: New public management discourse in the Brazilian context.International Review of Public Administration, 4,11\u201320. Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, ef\ufb01ciency, and equity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 679\u2013701. Bouckaert, G., & van Doren, W. (2003). Performance measurement and management in public sector organisations. In T. Bovaird & E. Lo\ufb02er (Eds.),Public management and governance ( pp. 151\u2013164). London: Routledge. Christensen, T., & L\u00e6greid, P. (2014). Performance and accountability\u2014a 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\u2013922, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic\u2018enlightenment\u2019.Public Administration, 87, 892\u2013909. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review, 14, 532\u2013550. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons?Public Administration, 69,3\u201319. Hood, C. (1995). The\u2018New Public Management\u2019in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20,93\u2013109. Jackson, P. M., & Palmer, B. (1992).Developing performance monitoring in public sector organizations( pp. 1\u201335). 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\u201326. Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2006). The control of public networks.International Public Management Journal, 9, 227\u2013247. Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2009). Towards and exogenous theory of public network performance.Public Administration, 87, 440\u2013456. International Review of Public Administration367 Kickert, W. J. M. (2001). Public management of hybrid organizations: Governance of quasi-autonomous executive agencies.International Public Management Journal, 4, 135\u2013150. Kim, J. (2006). Networks, network governance, and networked networks.International Review of Public Administration, 11,19\u201334. Koppenjan, J., & Koliba, C. (2013). Transformations towards new public governance: Can the new paradigm handle complexity?International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 1\u20138. Kurunm\u00e4ki, L., & Miller, P. (2006). Modernizing government: The calculating self, hybridization and performance measurement.Financial Accountability and Management, 22,87\u2013106. Guthrie, J., & English, L. (1997). Performance information and programme evaluation in the Australian public sector.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10, 154\u2013164. Lapsley, I. (2008). The NPM agenda: Back to the future.Financial Accountability and Management, 24,77\u201396. 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\u2013161. Leishman, F., Cope, S., & Starie, P. (1995). Reforming the police in Britain: New public management, policy networks and a tough\u2018old bill\u2019.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 8,26\u201337. Liao, Y. & Zhang, Y. (2012). Citizen participation in local budgeting: Mechanisms, political support, and city manager\u2019s moderating role.International Review of Public Administration, 17,19\u201338. Mandell, M., & Keast, R. L. (2007). Evaluating network arrangements: Toward revised performance measures.Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 574\u2013597. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it.International Review of Public Administration, 66,33\u201343. Miller, P., Kurunm\u00e4ki, L., & O\u2019Learly, T. (2008). Accounting, hybrids and the management of risk.Accounting Organizations and Society, 33, 942\u2013967. 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\u2013439. Nam, T. (2013). Citizen participation in visioning a progressive city: A case study of Albany 2030.International Review of Public Administration, 18, 139\u2013161. Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance?Public Management Review, 8, 377\u2013 387. Pollanen, R. M. (2005). Performance measurement in municipalities: Empirical evidence in Canadian context.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18,4\u201324. 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\u2013336). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Power, M. (1997).The audit society: Rituals of veri\ufb01cation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Power, M. (2003). Evaluating the audit explosion.Law and Policy, 25, 185\u2013202. 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\u2013648. 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\u201333. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public sector organizational networks.Public Administration Review, 61, 413\u2013423. 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\u201332. 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\u2013453. Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and accountability challenges.International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 621\u2013631. Sanderson, I. (2001). Performance management, evaluation and learning in model local government.Public Administration, 79, 297\u2013313. 368D. Agostino and M. Arnaboldi Thomasson, A. (2009). Exploring the ambiguity of hybrid organizations: A stakeholders approach.Financial Accountability and Management, 25, 353\u2013366. Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010). Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness.Public Administration, 88, 528\u2013550. Verbeeten, F. H. M. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 427\u2013454. 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\u2013205. Yin, R. K. (2003).Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage. International Review of Public Administration369
\nIn your original thread discuss the following: Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future.The challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this
\n Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration, New Public Management and Public Governance: the Case of the Tuscany Region Nicola Mario Iacovino 1&Sara Barsanti 1& Lino Cinquini 1 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 org anization, 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 administr ation 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 \u201382 DOI 10.1007\/s11115-015-0327-x * Nicola Mario Iacovino [email\u00a0protected] Sara Barsanti [email\u00a0protected] Lino Cinquini [email\u00a0protected] 1 Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant \u2019Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libert\u00e0, 24-56127 Pisa, Italy 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 B Napoleonic ^administrative tradition (Capano 2003;Mussari1997 ;Ongaro2006)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 coexisten ce of different Public Administration models in the same organization at a certain period was conducted. The transfor- mation process and the coexistence of diff erent 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 (Flynn1993;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 L\u00e6greid 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, continuiti es 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: \u00abMany NPM- based tools and instruments are still used and optimized in order to support process improvements. Internally govern ments 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\u00bb (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 comb ined 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 Table1,ismadeupofasetofdimensionsofanalysisthat 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\u2019Flynn ( 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 PA 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 B implementation gap ^is highlighted in the international and national literature and in public debates on Italy \u2019s 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 B Ordinary 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;Nutietal. 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 Bradley2002). 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 theregionalpresidencyandthesingleGDs.Table1 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 \u2019 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 Ta b l e 1Public management models reference matrix. Referred to: Osborne ( 2006), Cepiku (2005), Galdiero ( 2009), Di Filippo ( 2005), Monteduro ( 2005), Rotondo ( 2011), Sancino ( 2010), Ewalt ( 2001), Barzelay (1992), Denhardt and Denhardt ( 2003), O\u2019Flynn ( 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) Old Public Administration OPA New Public Management NPM Public Governance PG Leading logic\/ Subject The most important logic which stands above organization management (Galdiero 2009). Bureaucratic. Focus on Legitimacy , compliance with strict predetermined rules and procedures Internal efficiency. Focus on Management and the working logic of each single PA System efficiency, effectiveness. Focus on policy-making, p ublic services, management and democracy Systemic approach Dimension given by Galdiero ( 2009)and based on organization theory (Thompson 1967 , Denhardt and Denhardt 2003)Closed system The organization is centered on its internal bureaucratic and administrative dynamics with inadequate concern for the external environment Partially closed system The organization is oriented towards results Partially open system The organization is more oriented towards relationships and its strategic external environment, by stimulating process of integration and coordination. Perspective Interventions viewpoint toward the external environment (Cepiku 2005,cfr.Kooiman and Van Vliet 1993) Micro \/ Self-referential Procedures and rules-oriented. Micro Emphasis on PA management features. Involves all three levels: -Micro (each single PA); -M eso (PAs and company systems) -Macro (socio-economic systems). Action is focused on the outside, towards the governance of systems and networks involving social and economic subjects. Relevant dimensions It refers to the most important aspects which concentrate all mana gement activities and performance evaluations in PA. (Meneguzzo 2006;Brignalland Modell 2000; Di Filippo 2005) Legitimacy and Administrative conformity with rules and regulations Effectiveness, efficiency, economy The focus is on ultimate performance results in an economical and managerial perspective (cf. the so-called B3E \u2019s ^ principles) Effectiveness, efficiency, economy + Equity ,transparency ,ethics ,quality improvement, economic, social and environmental sustainabilityof the implemented policies, accountability: ability to account for d ifferent internal and external stakeholders. 66 N.M. Iacovino et al. Ta b l e 1(continued) Old Public Administration OPA New Public Management NPM Public Governance PG The performance evaluation takes intoaccount other dimensions than those of the B3E \u2019s ^ principle Internal relationships This dimension regards those features mainly involved in the relationships between subjects operating inside the organization. (Cepiku 2005;Galdiero 2009; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011,TerBogt 2003) Hierarchical relationships, planning principles of specialization and expertise Separation of the political level from the administrative level (management). Politicians have a strategic, goal-setting role, and civil servants are supposed to be autonomous managers held to account through performance arrangements and incentives Overcoming the po litician-manager dichotomy Reconciling interests at the administrative level. Decision-making contents Characteristics of the decision-making pro- cesses and evaluation criteria of decisions (Cepiku 2005,cf.KooimanandVanVliet 1993 ) Specific and strict Introduction of multiple criteria for the evaluation of decisions. List of criteria to be used in order to decide and evaluate the effectiveness of decisions Flexibility + Differences in this dimension are nuanced between the two models, consisting in greater or lesser flexibility and adaptability of decis ions regarding an administration\u2019s interventions External relationships Nature of the relationship between PA and other public and private actors (Cepiku 2005,cfr.Kooimanand Van Vliet 1993; Galdiero 2009) Public monopoly PA is the only provider of public services Competition \/ contrast public-public and public-private. Fragmentation\/ disintegration of the BPA system ^. Cooperation among PAs, other public and private subjects. Accountability The principle of Bbeing called to account for one \u2019s actions ^ (Mulgan 2000; Shamsul Haque 2000). User Citizen as a Bpassive ^subject Client C lient is seen as a bearer of interestsand needs PA Citizen Notjustserviceusersorcustomers, but also active public policy recipients Planning and control systems orientation (Hinna 2008;Ewalt2001 ; Barzelay 1992) Input, formal results Measurement system emphasis is on the resources used (input), especially financial resources. Output Measurement system emphasis is set on goods and services delivered (output), instead of resources used. Output, Outcome Multiple objectives are measured, including service outputs, satisfaction, outcomes, trust and legitimacy Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 67 Ta b l e 1(continued) Old Public Administration OPA New Public Management NPM Public Governance PG Governance model The distinction refers to the four governance models (procedural, corporate, market, and network) framework by Considine (Considine 1999,2001 ; Considine and Lewis 2003;Padovanietal. 2010).Procedural governance Following of rules and protocols, high reliance on supervision, and an expectation that tasks and decisions will be well scripted. Corporate governance Budgeting and reporting are considerably important, and using them in a public administration concentrates on outputs instead of inputs, focusing on specific groups of citizens who are receiving services. Market or Network Governance Market governance, contracting out, competitive tenders, a nd principal agent separation are employed to respond to financial signals and competitive pressure. In network models, the government continues to rely on outside agencies, but in a stronger strategic partnership , and where competition and confidentiality of contracts are substituted by joint action. 68 N.M. Iacovino et al. Ta b l e 2Key words for each dimension of public managerial models (key words in Italian, meaning in English) Old Public Administration (OPA) New Public Management (NPM) Public Governance (PG) Leading logic\/ Subject Key words:burocra* (bureaucracy); legittim* (legitimacy); procedur* (procedures) Key words: efficie* (efficiency); economic* (economy); controll* (control and to control); compan* (companies and private tools); management; innov* (innovation and renewal). Key words: efficie* (effic iency); effica* (effectiveness); governance; innov* (innovation and renewal). Systemic approach Textual analysis Textual analysis Key words: integra* (integration, to integrate), coordina* (coordination, to coordinate) Perspective Textual analysis Textual analysis Key words: confront* (to compare); benchmark*; ret* (network); integra* (integration, to integrate); coordina* (coordination, to coordinate); stakeholder Relevant dimensions Key words:legittim* (legitimacy); controll* (control and to control); procedur* (procedures); conformity Key words: effica* (effectiveness); efficie* (efficiency); economic* (economy); transparency Key words: effica* (effectiveness); efficie* (efficiency); economic* (economy); equit* (equity); transparen* (transparency); quality* (quality); sostenib il* (sustainability); accountability, stakeholders Internal rela tionships Key words:gerarch* (hierarchical); separar* (separa tion or distinction) Key words: politic* (political) level; amministr* (admin istrative) level Key words: integra* (integration, to integrate); coordina* (coordination, to coordinate); trasvers* (cross-functional) Decision-making contents Textual analysis Textual analysis Textual analysis External relationships Textual analysis Key words: competition Framment* (fragmentation) Key words: cooperation Coordina* (coordination, to coordinate): concerta* (concertation); condiv* (sharing) Accountability (t owards whom) Key words:utent*(user); responsabi*(responsiveness) Key words: client* (client); soddisfa* (satisfaction); a ccountability; responsabi* (responsiveness) Key words: cittadin*(citizen); popolaz* (population) soddisfazio* (satisfaction); accountability; responsabi* (responsiveness); value for money Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 69 Ta b l e 2(continued) Old Public Administration (OPA) New Public Management (NPM) Public Governance (PG) Planning and control systems orientation Key words: input valuta* ( assessment); cost* (cost); misura* (measure); obiettiv* (target); indi cator* (indicators); program* (program and programming); pianifica* (planning); cost* (cost); obiettiv* (target, achievement) Key words: valuta* (assessment); output; performance; misura* (measure); obiettiv* (target); indi cator* (indicators); program* (program and programming); pianifica* (planning); obiettiv* (target, achievement) Key words: confront* (to compare); benchmark*; valuta* (assessment ); output assessment; outcome assessment; performance assessment; impatt* (impact) assessment; misura* (measure); obiettiv* (target); indicato r* (indicators); program* (program and programming); pianifica* (planning); valor* (value); obiettiv* ( target, achievement) Governance model Textual analysis Textual analysis Key words: mercato*(market); rete* (network), fiducia (trust); relati* (relation) 70 N.M. Iacovino et al. Results Ta bl e3summarizes 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 \u2019s experience and expectations and (iii) Top management \u2019s 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): \u00abTuscany 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 ( \u2026)\u00bb (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: \u00abFor example, the various regional councilors (the equivalent of ministers in a national government, Ed.) can no longer limit themselves to forming policies; Ta b l e 3 Overall results Object of analysis Old public administrationNew public managementPublic governanceTo t . Regional acts and laws (the strategic orientation of the Region) \u2013 174663 The policy maker: the vice-president (experience) 5371 5 The policy maker: the vice-president (expectations) \u2013 235 Top management (experience) 2919957 Top management (expectations) \u2013171431 To t a l 3 45 87 91 7 1 Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 71 they must also take responsibility for the effectiveness of their interventions, to the extent of their competence\u00bb. (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 B mission budget ^,a Bmodern system of analytical controls ^,anda 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 exter nal relations are attributable to the PG model. An open-system approach, charact erized 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, Ta b l e 4 The strategic orientation of the region: results of our analysis of regional acts and laws Dimensions Old public administrationNew public managementPublic governanceTo t . Leading logic\/Subject \u201381119 Systemic approach \u2013\u201388 Perspective \u2013\u201322 Relevant dimensions \u2013641 0 Internal relationships \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013 Decision-making contents \u2013\u201333 External relationships \u2013\u201322 Accountability (towards whom) \u2013\u201333 Planning and control systems \u2019orientation \u2013 281 0 Governance model \u2013156 To t a l \u2013174663 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 \u2019s interview shows how she aims to overcome the politician-manager dichotomy (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011), and how she balances interests at the administration level thr ough 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, Ta b l e 5 The policy maker \u2019s perspective Old public administration New public management Public governance Dimensions Expectations Experience Expectations Experience Expectations Experience Leading logic\/Subject \u201311 \u2013\u20131 Systemic approach \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u20131 Perspective \u20131\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013 Relevant dimensions \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013 1\u2013 Internal relationships \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u20135 Decision-making contents \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013 External relationships \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013 Accountability (Towards whom) \u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013 Planning and control systems \u2019orientation \u2013 1\u2013 22 \u2013 Governance model \u201321 1\u2013\u2013 To t a l \u201352 33 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 \u2019s evaluation: \u00abTuscany \u2019s 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. Ta b l e 6 Top management \u2019s perspective Old public administration New public management Public governance Dimensions Expectations Experience Expectations Experience Expectations Experience Leading logic\/Subject \u2013126 36 1 Systemic approach \u20132\u2013 1\u2013 \u2013 Perspective \u201321 \u20131 1 Relevant dimensions \u2013\u2013 333 \u2013 Internal relationships \u201321 11 5 Decision-making contents \u2013 21 41 2 External relationships \u2013\u2013 \u2013\u2013\u2013 \u2013 Accountability (towards whom) \u2013\u2013 121 \u2013 Planning and control systems \u2019orientation \u2013 7\u2013 2\u2013 \u2013 Governance model \u201324 34 \u2013 To t a l \u201329 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\u2019system\u00bb (GD 1). Another manager agrees on this aspect: \u00abThere 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\u00bb (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. \u00abMapping 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\u00bb. (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: \u00abProblems 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\u00bb. (GD 2) Not a single concept emerged regarding external relationships, which confirm top management \u2019s 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): \u00abThis 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\u00bb. (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 g reater system flexibility and instrument adaptability to enable the regional adminis tration to face unexpected situations and new challenges posed by external environments, perceived as increasingly discontinuous: \u00abAnother 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\u00bb. (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: \u00abThe 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\u00bb. (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: \u00abSome targets should be cross-functional and they should involve all the general directorates, or at least, the most importa nt ones. Let me add the ability to promote \u2013I think this is an essential point \u2013cross collaboration and cross-functionality\u00bb. (GD 1) The corporate model (NPM) dominates expectations about governance. This is clearly stated in two verbatimwhere respondents discussed the need to map all existing processes as a prerequisite to more virtuous organizational behavior: \u00abThe 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\u00bb. (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 1summarizes 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\u2019sinterview). 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 \u2013two 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 B organizationally distanced ^from the policy makers (Osborne 2006). B Having 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 B hybridity ^of these organizational forms is caused by a layering process, whereby elements of the different models supplement or complement one another (Christensen and L\u00e6greid 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 \u2018old public administration \u2019, 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 (R\u00f8vik 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 4and 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,and6 ), and others have become weakened or deinstitutionalized (i.e. the shift towards a PG logic on the Binternal relations ^dimension, see Tables 5and 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 1shows 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 ^.Thiscouldbe due to a resistance to change in Italy \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019t allow us to generalize our results. 78 N.M. Iacovino et al. Finally, further research is needed tocarefully investigate this subject by taking into account other variables, suc h 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 Ta b l e 7 Regional documents and laws Title and section analyzed (in Italian) Type of document Year of approvalYe a r o f enforcement Toscana 2015. Programma di governo per la IX Legislatura \u2192Section 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 \u20132015 Presentazione del Programma della IX Legislatura e della Giunta Regionale Keynote speech of the President to the Regional Legislative Council 2010 2010 \u20132015 Programma Regionale di Sviluppo 2011 \u20132015. Identit\u00e0 competitiva e sviluppo responsabile \u2192 Section analyzed:PIS Semplificazione; Evoluzione del modello di programmazione, monitoraggio e controllo Regional Development Program (DRP) 2011 2011\u2013 2015 La Toscana in chiaro: bilancio sociale 2011 \u2192 Section analyzed: Presentazione del Presidente; Presentazione dell \u2019Assessore al Bilancio Corporate Sustainability Report 2012 2011 Legge regionale 17 giugno 1992, n. 26, Prima attuazione dell \u2019art. 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 AccessThis 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 \u2019agenzia di ambito territoriale ottimale. Azienda Pubblica, vol. 20, n. 4, ottobre \u2013 dicembre, pp. 653 \u2013673. 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 \u2018New Public Sector \u2019. 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\u2013801. Cepiku, D. (2005). Governance: riferimento concettuale o ambiguit\u00e0 terminologica nei processi di innovazione della PA? Azienda Pubblica, 1,84\u2013110. Cepiku, D., Meneguzzo, M., & Senese, M. (2008). Innovations in public management and governance in Italy . Roma: Aracne. Christensen, T. (2010). Transcending new public management. \u00d8konomi & Politik, 83(1), s 3\u2013s13. Christensen, T. (2012). Post-NPM and changing public governance. Meiji Journal of Political Science and Economics ,1. Christensen, T., & L\u00e6greid, P. (2010). Increased complexity in public sector organizations – the challenges of combining NPM and post-NPM. In P. L\u00e6greid, & K. Verhoest (ed.), Governance of public sector organizations: proliferation, autonomy and performance . Palgrave Macmillan. Chapter 13. s 255\u2013275. Christensen, T., & L\u00e6greid, P. (2011). Complexity and hybrid public administration – theoretical and empirical challenges. Public Organization Review, 11 (4), s 407\u2013s 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 \u2013210. 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\u2013561. Considine, M. (1999). Markets and the new welfare state: employment assistance reforms in Australia. JournalofSocialPolicy,28 (2), 183\u2013203. 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\u2013140. 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\u201316. 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\u20138. 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. Fattore, G., Dubois, H. F. V., & Lapenta, A. (2012). Measuring new public management and governance inpolitical debate. Public Administration Review, 72 (2), 218\u2013227. Flynn, N. (1993). Public sector management . London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Frederic, T. (1998). NPA to NPM: thirty years of progress. Public Administration Times, 21,1\u20132. 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 \u2019ambito 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\u201319. 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\u2013150. 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.pdf . 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).\u2018 Accountability\u2019: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555\u2013573. 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\u2013283). 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 \u2019Flynn, J. (2007). From new public management to public value: paradigmatic change and managerial implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66 , 353\u2013366. Olsen, O. (2007). The ups and downs of bureaucratic organization. The Annual Review of Political Science, 11 ,13 \u201337. Olsen, J. P. (2009). Change and continuity: an institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. European Political Science Review, 1 (1), 3\u201332. 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\u2013770. Ongaro, E., & Valotti, G. (2008). Public management reform in Italy: explaining the implementation gap. International Journal of Public Sector Management ,21 (2 ), pp.174 \u2013204. Ongaro, E., Ferr\u00e9, 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\u2013387. 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\u2013373. 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\u201351. Rotondo, F. (2011). Principi di public governance nei sistemi integrati di offerta turistica, Giappichelli. R\u00f8vik, K.-A. (1996). Deinstitutionalization and the logic of fashion. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sev \u2019on (Eds.), Translating organizational change . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sancino, A. (2010). L \u2019applicazione del paradigma della Public governance negli enti locali: implicazioni per il management, Economia Aziendale Online. Public Organizations Between Old Public Administration 81 Shamsul Haque, M. (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66 , 599\u2013617. 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\u201339). New York: Oxford University Press. Ter Bogt, H. J. (2003). Performance evaluation styles in governmental organizations: How do professional managers facilitate politicians\u2019 work?.Management Accounting Research, 14 (4), 311\u2013332. 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\u20131024. 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 \u2019Anna 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 \u2019Anna 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 \u2019Anna 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. R epro duce d w ith p erm is sio n o f th e c o pyrig ht o w ner. F urth er r e pro ductio n p ro hib ite d w ith out p erm is sio n.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In your original thread discuss the following: Statesmanship as it relates to public administration reform and the future. The challenges and opportunities that a would-be statesman would face in this area and the statecraft needed to lead successfully. Integrate biblical principles in your initial thread. Please review the\u00a0Discussion Assignment Instructions\u00a0Download Discussion Assignment Instructions\u00a0prior to posting. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_joinchat":[]},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282018"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=282018"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282018\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}