Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prop Masters or Puppeteers? The Role of Public Servants in Staging a Public Value Review

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

  • 1857 Accesses

Abstract

The ideas of Public Value Management have expanded the scope of ambitions and actors involved in government. Public, private, and community partners increasingly join forces to achieve societal outcomes. Yet the measures and processes for reviewing the impact of these collaborations have lagged behind. Reviews traditionally center on politicians holding the executive to account on specific promises, ignoring the wider constellation of actors and ambitions now at play.

Public value reviews should entail multiple public, private, and community actors holding each other to account for their contribution to the desired societal outcomes. New routines and arenas are needed to enable such wider reviews, while existing political procedures and democratic forums must remain insured and respected.

This chapter examines what public value reviews could look like by exploring how the various actors can come together to explicate their goals, exchange and examine performance information, and explore actions for future improvements. The idea of public value reviews is made concrete by looking at summits, where the various partners literally gather to jointly reflect on their collective impact.

The chapter focuses specifically on the role of public servants in preparing and staging these summits. Public servants play a key part by (1) getting the right people together, (2) helping to explicate goals, (3) providing useful data props to inform the discussion, and (4) distribute the insights of the review to a wide audience. However, public servant must be careful to not overstep their mandate, becoming the backstage “puppeteers” of public value reviews.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alford, J., and S. Yates. 2014. Mapping public value processes. International Journal of Public Sector Management 27 (4): 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Stewards, mediators, and catalysts: Toward a model of collaborative leadership. The Innovation Journal 17 (1): 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R.D. 2014. The performance stat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. New York: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benington, J., and M.H. Moore. 2011. Public value in complex and changing times. In Public value: Theory and practice, ed. J. Benington and M.H. Moore, 1–20. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J.M., and B.C. Crosby. 1993. Policy planning and the design and use of forums, arenas, and courts. Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design 20 (2): 175–194.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, J., S. Douglas, M. Sicilia, Z. Radnor, M. Noordegraaf, and P. Debus. 2017. Instruments of value: Using the analytic tools of public value theory in teaching and practice. Public Management Review 19 (5): 605–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, S., and C. Ansell. 2019. Getting a grip on the performance of collaborations: Examining collaborative performance regimes and collaborative performance summits. Collaborative Governance Seminar, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiskin, J. 1991. Democracy and deliberation. New directions for democratic reform. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J., J. Alford, O. Hughes, and S. Yates. 2015. Public value and political astuteness in the work of public managers: The art of the possible. Public Administration 93 (1): 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B.W., and J. Alford. 2015. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society 47 (6): 711–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J.E. 1992. Group processes and the social construction of growth management: Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (4): 440–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jos, P.H., and A. Watson. 2019. Privileging knowledge claims in collaborative regulatory management: An ethnography of marginalization. Administration and Society 51 (3): 371–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.H., and C. Skelcher. 2007. Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not? Public Administration 85 (3): 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meynhardt, T. 2009. Public value inside: What is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration 32 (3–4): 192–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meynhardt, T., and S. Bartholomes. 2011. (De) composing public value: In search of basic dimensions and common ground. International Public Management Journal 14 (3): 284–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M.H. 1995. Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Recognizing public value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D.P. 2005. Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review 65 (2): 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D.P. 2006. What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Dialogue theory and performance budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (2): 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. 2008. Advocacy and learning: An interactive-dialogue approach to performance information use. In Performance information in the Public Sector, 24–41. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D.P., and A. Kroll. 2016. Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA modernization act. Public Administration Review 76 (2): 314–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D.P., S. Fernandez, S. Kim, K.M. LeRoux, S.J. Piotrowski, B.E. Wright, and K. Yang. 2011. Performance regimes amidst governance complexity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl_1): i141–i155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, Stephen B., Melissa M. Stone, John M. Bryson, and Barbara C. Crosby. 2015. Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration 93 (3): 715–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quick, K., and J. Sandfort. 2014. Learning to facilitate deliberation: Practicing the art of hosting. Critical Policy Studies 8 (3): 300–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R.A., and J. Wanna. 2007. The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration 66 (4): 406–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. 1994. Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2009. Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration 87 (2): 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spekle, R.F., and F.H. Verbeeten. 2014. The use of performance measurement systems in the public sector: Effects on performance. Management Accounting Research 25 (2): 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Noort, M., L. Van der Torre., and S. Douglas 2017. Belofte, pijn en medicijn: Het verantwoorden van publieke waardecreatie aan de lokale politiek en maatschappelijke partners. Bestuurswetenschappen 71 (2): 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Torre, L., S. Douglas, and P. ‘t Hart. 2019. Werken aan publieke waarde. Den Haag: Universiteit Utrecht/VNG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E., K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 2008. Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Crisis Management 3 (1): 81–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuurmond, A. 2016. Personal correspondence with the authors about his work as Ombudsman in Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University School of Governance (USG), Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Scott Douglas & Mirko Noordegraaf

  2. Utrecht University School of Governance, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

    Mijke van de Noort

Authors
  1. Scott Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mijke van de Noort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirko Noordegraaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott Douglas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Helen Sullivan

  2. Public Service Research Group, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Helen Dickinson

  3. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Hayley Henderson

Section Editor information

  1. Brigham Young University, Provo, USA

    Eva Witesman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Douglas, S., van de Noort, M., Noordegraaf, M. (2021). Prop Masters or Puppeteers? The Role of Public Servants in Staging a Public Value Review. In: Sullivan, H., Dickinson, H., Henderson, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29980-4_83

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation