Advertisement

The Impact of Contemporary Management Ideas: Their Influence on the Constitution of Public Sector Management Work

  • Christine Shearer
  • Stewart Clegg
  • Judy Johnston
Chapter
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)

Abstract

Drawing on empirical research conducted in Australia’s Public Service with Departmental Secretaries, we address the research question: how have contemporary management ideas influenced Departmental Secretaries and their work? Contemporary management ideas, the majority of which are various forms of managerialism, introduced by New Public Management theory, animated reforms of public sector management work from the 1980s. The role played by Departmental Secretaries, central agencies and the government in the acceptance or rejection of contemporary management ideas, how such ideas travelled, were translated, transferred and transformed, are considered. Many contemporary management ideas did not alter the constitution of public sector management work, because they were deemed inappropriate for the public actors, environments and roles and responsibilities that constitute public sector management work.

Keywords

Decision-making power Globalizing webs Institutional polymorphism Institutional polypraxism Management fashions and fads Private/public divide Scepticism 

References

  1. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson, E., & Eisenman, M. (2008). Employee-management techniques: Transient fads or trending fashions? Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(1), 719–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 708–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Achterhuis, H. (1998). De erfenis van de utopie. Amsterdam: Ambo.Google Scholar
  5. Allison, G. T. (1984). Public and private administrative leadership: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organisational culture. Urbana, IL: Illinois University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  6. Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Barnard, C. (2002[1936]). Mind in everyday affairs: An examination into logical and non-logical thought processes. In S. Clegg (Ed.), Central currents in organization studies (Vol. 1, pp. 2798–2798). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bettles, C. (2013). Metcalfe sacked from DAFF. Farm Weekly, September 18, 2013. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/metcalfe-sacked-from-daff/2671881.aspx
  9. Brunsson, N. (2006). Mechanisms of hope: Maintaining the dream of the rational organisation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coe, B. (1997). How structural conflicts stymie reinvention. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Remuneration tribunal review of the office of secretary report part I (159p). Attorney General’s Department, Canberra, Australia, February. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from http://www.ag.gov.au/cca
  12. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organisational change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (1996). Introduction. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organisational change (pp. 1–17). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, C. (1996). Reinventing government as postmodern symbolic politics. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. Di Maggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organisational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Galbraith, J. (1980). Applying the theory of management of organisations. In W. M. Evans (Ed.), Frontiers in organisation and management (pp. 151–167). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  17. Goodsell, C. (1992). Reinvent government or rediscover it. Public Administration Review, 53(1), 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory, B. (2003). All the king’s horses and all the king’s men: Putting New Zealand’s public sector together again. International Public management Network, 66(2), 41–58.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, H. K., & Salskov-Iversen, D. (2005). Globalising webs: Translation of public sector e-Modernisation. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Global ideas: How ideas, objects, and practices travel in the global economy, advances in organisation studies series (Vol. 13), S. R. Clegg & R Stablein (Series Editors). Copenhagen: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kobrak, P. (1996). The social responsibilities of a public entrepreneur. Administration and Society, 28(2), 205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organisational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mathews, P. (2015). Deconstructing management fad adoption: Towards a conceptual model. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(2), 302–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moe, R. (1994). The “reinventing government” exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the consequences. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nathan, R. (1995). Reinventing government: What does it mean? Public Administration Review, 55(2), 213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing bureaucracy: The five strategies for reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Parker, L., & Ritson, P. (2005). Fads, stereotypes and management Gurus: Fayol and Follett Today. Management Decision, 43(10), 1335–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the Neo—Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Powell, W., Gammal, D., & Simard, C. (2005). Close encounters: The circulation and reception of managerial practices in the San Francisco Bay area non-profit community. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Global ideas: How ideas, objects, and practices travel in the global economy, advances in organisation studies series (Vol. 13) S. Clegg & R. Stablein (Series Editors). Copenhagen: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pusey, M. (2003). Economic rationalism in Canberra: A nation-building state changes its mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, G., & Waste, R. (1998). The limits of reinventing government. American Review of Public Administration, 28(4), 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996). Imitating by editing success: The construction of organisation field. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Translating organisational change (pp. 69–92). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (Eds.). (2002). The expansion of management knowledge. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Savoie, D. (1994). What is wrong with the new public management? Canadian Public Administration, 38(1), 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott, W. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies, 29(2), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stewart, J., & Ranson, S. (1988). Management in the public domain. Public Money and Management, 8(1–2), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sundstrom, G. (2006). Management by results: Its origin and development in the case of the Swedish state. International Public Management Journal, 9(4), 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Talbot, C. (2001). UK public services and management (1979–2000): Evolution of revolution? The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(4), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ten Bos, R. (2000). Fashion and Utopia in management thinking. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Townley, B. (2004). Managerial technologies, ethics, and managing. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 426–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, D. (2000). Reinventing the proverbs of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, R. (2004). Management fashions and fads: Understanding the role of consultants and managers in the evolution of ideas. Management Decision, 42(6), 769–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolfe, P. (1997). Why must we reinvent the federal government? Putting historical developmental claims to the test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 353–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Shearer
    • 1
  • Stewart Clegg
    • 1
  • Judy Johnston
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations