Skip to main content

Reshaping the Hybrid Role of Public Servants: Identifying the Opportunity Space for Co-production and the Enabling Skills Required by Professional Co-producers

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant

Abstract

This chapter starts by introducing how the public sector has adopted different governance metatrends during the last century and how the adoption of these metatrends over time has led to new, hybrid roles for service users and frontline staff. The focus in this chapter is dedicated to the changing roles of the frontline staff and especially the role ascribed to them as professional co-producers. The premise is that professional co-producers must build their capacity to navigate in the local co-production context that is a hybrid of the Old Public Administration, New Public Management, and New Public Governance. This complex, hybrid context is framed in the chapter as “the opportunity space for co-production.” The problem is that this opportunity space represents an arena in which there is potential for the creation of “double or triple pressure” on the professional co-producers because they are expected to handle top-down and bottom-up expectations simultaneously – and perhaps also horizontal pressures stemming from the expectations of staff from other organizations (interorganizational collaborations). The argument is that professional co-producers must build their capacity to navigate in this dynamic context, acting together with service users and members from other organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, L. B., Greve, C., Klausen, K. K., & Torfing, J. 2017. Offentlige styringsparadigmer: Konkurrence og sameksistens. Copenhagen. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, K.P.R. 2013. Public encounters: The history and future of face-to-face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration 91 (2): 469–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1991. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L., and S.M. Reich. 2009. Randomized controlled trials: A gold standard with feet of clay. In What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? ed. S. Donaldson, C. Christina, and M. Melvin. Thousand Oaks. SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., and E. Loeffler. 2012. From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1119–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, D., and M. Harris. 2009. The challenge of co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. London: New Economics Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. 2018. Co-creation and co-production in public services: Urgent issues in practice and research. In Co-production and co-creation engaging citizens in public services, ed. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, E.Z. 2012. Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review 72 (6): 940–949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodkin, Z.E. 2013. Street level organization and the welfare state. In Work and the welfare states – Street-Level Organization and workfare policy, ed. Z.E. Brodkin and M. Grogory. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and L. Bloomberg. 2014. Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review 74 (4): 445–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davy, S.G., and D. Ågård. 2017. Relationskapacitet som forudsætning for capacity building. In Samskabelse og Capacity Building i den offentlige sektor, ed. H.K. Krogstrup. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, B., J. Seeman, and J. Gustafsson. 2011. Development of a program for tele-rehabilitation of COPD patients across sectors: Co-innovation in a network. International Journal of Integrated Care 18 (3): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, J.R. 2018. Quality caring in nursing and health systems: Implications for clinicians, educators, and leaders. Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C., C. Mangan, C. Needham, and J. Rees. 2013. Transforming local public services throug co-production. Birmingham: AHRC Connected Communities & Department for Communities and Local Government at University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C., C. Needham, C. Mangan, and J. Rees. 2015. Generating ‘good enough’ evidence for co-production. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 13 (1): 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evetts, J. 2011. A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology 59 (4): 406–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., and K.J. Geraghty. 2005. Professionals in public service organizations. In The Oxford handbook of public management, ed. E. Ferlie, L.E. Lynn, and C. Pollitt. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fledderus, J. 2015. Building trust through public service co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (7): 550–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funnell, S.C., and P.J. Rogers. 2011. Purposeful program theory – Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouillart, F., and T. Hallett. 2015. Co-creation in government. Stanford Social Innovation Review 13 (0): 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honadle, B.W. 1981. A capacity-building framework: A search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review 41 (5): 575–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., and R. Dixon. 2013. A model of cost-cutting in government? The great management revolution in UK central government reconsidered. Public Administration 91 (1): 114–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hueftle Stockdill, S., M. Baizerman, and D.W. Compton. 2002. Toward a definition of the ECB process: A conversation with the ECB literature. New Directions for Evaluation (93) 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, M., and J. Gupta. 2015. The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy 50: 100–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J.B., H.K. Krogstrup, and A.O. Thomassen. 2019. Why are we here? The importance of sensemaking in co-production. IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of public services. KU Lueven, May 26–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinhans, R. 2017. False promises of co-production in neighbourhood regeneration: The case of Dutch community enterprises. Public Management Review 19 (10): 1500–1518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krag Jespersen, P. 1996. Bureaukratiet – magt og effektivitet. Copenhagen: Jurist og Økonomforbundets Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstrup, H.K. 2016. Evalueringsmodeller, 3. Udgave. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstrup, H.K., and J. Brix. 2019. Co-produktion i den offentlige sektor: Brugerinvolvering i kvalitetsudvikling. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Moody, S.W., M. Musheno, and M.C. Musheno. 2003. Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. 2011. Network management. In The Sage handbook of governance, ed. M. Bevir. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. 1940. Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces 28 (0): 560–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortensen, N.M. forthcoming. The challenges of translating and implementing co-production in care services – A Danish case study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhand, J., and I. Van Meerkerk. 2018. Case study – Co-production of care services: Co-opting citizens in the reform agenda. In Co-production and co-creation engaging citizens in public services, ed. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, C., and C. Mangan. 2016. The 21st-century public servant: Working at three boundaries of public and private. Public Money & Management 36 (4): 265–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2011. Together for better public Services: Partnering with citizens and civil society. OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.

  • Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: Synergy and development. World Development 24 (6): 1073–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V. 2018. Co-production and public service management: Citizenship, governance and public service management. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. 2011. Public ManagementReform A Comparative Analysis—New PublicManagement, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford university press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rist, R.C. 1995. Management accountability. In Policy evaluation – Linking theory to practice, The international library of comparative public policy, ed. R.C. Rist. Cambridge: Edgar Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P. 2011. Implications of complicated and complex characteristics for key tasks in evaluation. In Evaluating the complex – Attribution, contribution, and beyond, Comparative policy evaluation, ed. K. Forss, M. Marra, and R. Schwartz. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Røvik, K.A. 2010. Managementtrender. Praktisk Økonomi & Finans 26 (03): 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlappa, H., and Y. Imani. 2018. Who is in the lead? New perspectives on leading service co-production. In Co-production and co-creation engaging citizens in public services, ed. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seemann, J. 2002. Distriktspsykiatri i et organisatorisk spændingsfelt. In Disktriktspsykiatri: En Lærebog, ed. S. Blinkenberg. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sehested, K. 2002. How new public management reforms challenge the roles of professionals. International Journal of Public Administration 25: 1513–1537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, T., and S. Tuurnas. 2018. The roles of the professional in co-production and co-creation processes. In Co-production and co-creation engaging citizens in public services, ed. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, P. 2013. Capacity building for school improvement: Revisited. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., and Triantafillou, eds. 2017. New public governance på dansk. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuurnas, S. 2016. The professional side of co-production. Academic dissertation, University of Tampere, Tampera. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuurnas, S., J. Stenvall, and P.H. Rannisto. 2016. The impact of co-production on frontline accountability: The case of the conciliation service. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijk, C., and T. Steen. 2016. Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, E. 2009. Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning. Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedung, E. 2010. Four waves of evaluation diffusion. Evaluation 16 (3): 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesel, F., and S. Modell. 2014. From new public management to new public governance? Hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism. Financial Accountability & Management 30 (2): 175–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, R., Q. Sun, and W. Si. 2015. The third wave of public administration: The new public governance. Canadian Social Science 11 (7): 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nanna Møller Mortensen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Mortensen, N.M., Brix, J., Krogstrup, H.K. (2020). Reshaping the Hybrid Role of Public Servants: Identifying the Opportunity Space for Co-production and the Enabling Skills Required by Professional Co-producers. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_17-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_17-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03008-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics