Advertisement

From Data Dashboards to Human Hearts

  • Sharon H. MastracciEmail author
  • Mary E. Guy
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to trace trends in government reforms, to connect them to public administration theory, and to explain why emotional labor should be integrated into theory and practice. Three main phases are described. First is reliance on bureaucratic processes, second is reliance on market mechanisms, and third is reliance on collaborations across multiple entities. Attempts to preserve the best of the first two phases—the scale and predictability of bureaucracy with the responsiveness and agility of the market—while adding an emphasis on service and attention to the citizen–state encounter, characterize the third phase. As governments use organizations and networks to address public problems, the importance of responsiveness, co-production, and citizen engagement demands emotive competencies. Easily measured “things” stop short of comprehending the wholeness that public administration seeks to achieve. Emotional labor is foundational to effective public service delivery, and it is time for public administration theory to embrace it.

References

  1. Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. “Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management.”Public Administration Review 74 (4): 445–56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnevale, David, and Camilla A. Stivers. 2019. Knowledge and Power in Public Bureaucracies: From Pyramid to Circle. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, Stephen J., Anoop Madhok, and Tao Wu. 2006. “Uncertainty, Opportunism, and Governance: The Effects of Volatility and Ambiguity on Formal and Relational Contracting.” Academy of Management Journal 49 (5): 1058–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet V. Denhardt. 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering.” Public Administration Review 60 (6): 549–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet V. Denhardt. 2011. The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet V. Denhardt. 2015. “The New Public Service: Revisited.” Public Administration Review 75 (5): 664–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denis, Jean-Louis, Ewan Ferlie, and Nicolette van Gestel. 2015. “Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations.” Public Administration 93 (2): 273–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickinson, Helen. 2016. “From New Public Management to New Public Governance: The Implications for a ‘New Public Service.’” In Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-Profits and Business, edited by David Gilchrist and John Butcher, 41–60. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Follett, Mary Parker. 2017/1925. “The Giving of Orders.” In Classics of Public Administration, 8th ed., edited by Jay Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, 76–104. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  10. Gittell, Jody Hoffer, and Anne Douglass. 2012. “Relational Bureaucracy: Structuring Reciprocal Relationships into Roles.” Academy of Management Review 37 (4): 709–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gow, James Iain, and Caroline du Four. 2000. “Is the New Public Management a Paradigm? Does It Matter?” International Review of Administrative Sciences 66 (2): 573–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hood, Christopher, and Ruth Dixon. 2015. A Government That Worked Better and Cost Less? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ingraham, Patricia Wallace, and David H. Rosenbloom. 1989. “The New Public Personnel and the New Public Service.” Public Administration Review 49 (2): 116–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kettl, Donald F. 1995. “Building Lasting Reform: Enduring Questions, Missing Reforms.” In Inside the Reinvention Machine: Appraising Governmental Reform, edited by Donald F. Kettl and John J. DiIulio Jr., 9–86. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  15. Kroll, Alexander, Milena I. Neshkova, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2017. “Spillover Effects from Customer to Citizen Orientation: How Performance Management Reforms Can Foster Public Participation.” Administration & Society.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716687341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Needham, Catherine, and Catherine Mangan. 2014. The 21st Century Public Servant. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  17. Needham, Catherine, Sharon Mastracci, and Catherine Mangan. 2017. “The Emotional Labour of Boundary Spanning.” Journal of Integrated Care 25 (4): 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Osborne, Stephen P. 2006. “The New Public Governance?” Public Management Review 8 (3): 377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rauh, Jonathan. 2018. “Ethics Problems in the New Public Service: Back to a Service Ethic?” Public Integrity 20 (2): 234–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhodes, Roderick W. 2016. “Recovering the Craft of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 76 (4): 638–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schon, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Scott, James C. 1999. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stivers, Camilla A. 2000. Bureau Men/Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stritch, Justin M. 2016. “A Preliminary Examination of Citizen Orientation and Multiple Dimensions of Organizational Performance.” International Journal of Public Administration 39 (5): 345–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Svensson, Lennart G. 2006. “New Professionalism, Trust, and Competence.” Current Sociology 54 (4): 579–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tilman, Rick, and John H. Brown. 1995. “Thorstein Veblen, C. Wright Mills and the Possibilities of a Public Administration.” International Journal of Social Economics 22 (1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Veblen, Thorstein. 1914. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Waldo, Dwight. 2017/1948. The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Wren, Daniel A. 1972. The Evolution of Management Thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Zanetti, Lisa A., and Cheryl S. King. 2013. “Reflections on Theory in Action: Transformational Public Service Revisited.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 35 (1): 128–43.  https://doi.org/10.2753/atp1084-1806350108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zavattaro, Staci M. 2012. “Management Movements and Phases of the Image: Potential for Closing the Loop.” Administration & Society 45 (1): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations