The dynamics of trust and distrust in street-level bureaucracy

The promise of New Public Management that it would deliver better quality public sector implementation for less public money has not materialized (Hood & Dixon, 2015). Managerialism and marketization are not appropriate... [ view full abstract ]

The promise of New Public Management that it would deliver better quality public sector implementation for less public money has not materialized (Hood & Dixon, 2015). Managerialism and marketization are not appropriate governance mechanisms for public tasks that are simultaneously factually complex and normatively ambiguous (Bannink et al., 2015; Osborne et al., 2015).

This paper uses the conceptual lens of the relationship between trust and control to better understand public sector implementation. This relationship is contingent: controls that do not match task requirements and/or values of those controlled are perceived as distrusting, while when controls match those task requirements and values/identity, trust and control are perceived as complementary (Sitkin, 1995; Weibel, 2007). Six (forthcoming) found that processes of design and implementation of control systems (the how) are as important as the content of control systems (the what) in public sector reforms.

This study analyses successful innovations in four Dutch public sectors through this conceptual lens of trust and control. The character of the innovations vary. In community care, a new organization (Buurtzorg) was founded, while in youth protection an existing organization (JBRA) went through a major transformation. In education, a non-profit organization (Stichting LeerKRACHT) supports schools in their innovation, while in aged care homes an innovation programme supported by the Health Ministry (Waardigheid en Trots) supports innovation within homes.

In all four cases organizations performed better, sometimes also costing less. In all cases frontline-worker teams working closely with clients, focusing on client needs, take centre stage. High levels of trust in team self-management combine with managerial support. Control is predominantly bottom-up and horizontal peer control rather than top-down managerial control.  We conclude with preliminary propositions to be tested in future research.

References

Bannink, D.B.D., Six, F.E., & Van Wijk, E. (2015). Bureaucratic, market or professional control? A theory on the relation between street-level task characteristics and the feasibility of control mechanisms In P. Hupe, M. Hill & A. Buffat (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 205-225). Bristol: Policy Press.

Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central government. Oxford: OUP.

Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z., Kinder, T., & Vidal, I. (2015). The SERVICE Framework: A Public-service-dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 424-438.

Sitkin, S.B. (1995). On the positive effects of legalization on trust. Research on negotiation in organizations, 5, 185-218.

Six, F.E. (forthcoming). Trust in public professionals and their professions. In: Sitkin, S.B., R. Searle and A.M. Nienaber,  Routledge Compendium on Trust. New York: Routledge.

Weibel, A. (2007). Formal Control and Trustworthiness: Shall the Twain Never Meet? Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 500-517.