Management of Multiple Accountabilities Through Setting Priorities: Evidence from a Cross‐National Conjoint Experiment

• Published date: 01 January 2022
• Author: Marija Aleksovska,Thomas Schillemans,Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
• Date: 01 January 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13357

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

132

Abstract: Public sector actors are continuously being held accountable by a multitude of accountability forums.

Responding to the forums’ demands often requires prioritizing between them. This study investigates how those

prioritization choices are made. Drawing on two competing perspectives: the classical view of accountability as

“answerability” which emphasizes hierarchy and control, and the modern interpretation of accountability as

“management of expectations” which highlights the strategic management of relations, we identify four factors whose

influence on prioritization choices we investigate. Using a conjoint experiment, we investigate the prioritization

decisions of civil servants in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We find that the threat of sanction, which

is central in the answerability perspective, is consistently the most important driver of prioritization decisions. The

management of expectations, focusing on forum expertise and relationships with the accountability forums, appears to

be largely context dependent and helps to explain additional, more fine-grained variations.

Evidence for Practice

• Managing multiple and conflicting accountability demands is commonplace in the work of civil servants at

all levels.

• To successfully resolve multiple accountability dilemmas, civil servants try to reconcile them or give priority

to some over others.

• There is a hierarchy of considerations when it comes to solving multiple accountability dilemmas, and the

avoidance of sanctions, particularly material and reputational, takes primacy over all other considerations.

• The demands of stakeholders which are seen as highly knowledgeable and with which there is a history of

positive working relationship are generally given priority, although the extent to which varies across contexts.

• The threat of sanction is the most powerful tool account holders can employ to ensure that their demands

are given priority by civil servants, although softer tools of influence like professional expertise and good

professional relationships can have meaningful effects in particular contexts too.

The work of public sector organizations

is constantly scrutinized by numerous

stakeholders holding them to account

(Busuioc and Lodge 2017; Koppell 2005; Willems

and van Dooren 2012). This is due to their unique

positioning between the stakeholders they serve—the

clients and the general public, the central government

who authorizes them to operate, and the professional

communities and oversight bodies who set and

maintain the standards of their work (Bovens 2007).

While this accountability multiplicity is unavoidable

in contemporary governance, it creates dilemmas

for public sector decision-makers at all levels, from

top-level executives to street-level bureaucrats

(Lieberherr and Thomann 2019; Schillemans 2015).

These dilemmas arise from the different, and often

conflicting demands the various stakeholders hold,

which pushes civil servants to seek ways to reconcile

them, or forces them to prioritize some stakeholder

demands over others (Busuioc and Lodge 2017;

Schwabenland and Hirst 2018; Sinclair 1995;

Thomann, Hupe, and Sager 2018).

Although the challenge of multiple accountabilities

is acknowledged widely in the academic literature

(Koppell 2005; Schillemans and Bovens 2011),

there is very little systematic knowledge about

how individual behaviors and decisions in public

administration are shaped by the necessity

to simultaneously give account to multiple

stakeholders (Aleksovska, Schillemans, and

Grimmelikhuijsen 2019; Busuioc and Lodge 2017;

Yang 2012). Particularly, the question what factors

explain why decision-makers at the top or further

down the line in the organization prioritize the

demands of one stakeholder over others remains

unanswered (Busuioc and Lodge 2017, 2; Romzek

and Dubnick 1987, 235; Schillemans and

Marija Aleksovska

Thomas Schillemans

Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen

Utrecht University

Management of Multiple Accountabilities Through Setting

Priorities: Evidence from a Cross-National Conjoint

Experiment

Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen is an

associate professor at the Utrecht School

of Governance of Utrecht University. Core

themes in his research are: transparency,

citizen trust in government, technology and

government, experimental methodology,

behavioral public administration.

Email: s.g.grimmelikhuijsen@uu.nl

Thomas Schillemans is a Professor in

accountability, behavior, and governance at

the Utrecht School of Governance of Utrecht

University. His research focuses on the

interactions of public sector organizations

with various relevant stakeholders from

their environment. He specializes in public

accountability, public sector governance,

trust & control, and the role of the media in

policy implementation.

Email: t.schillemans@uu.nl

Marija Aleksovska is a doctoral candidate

at the Utrecht School of Governance of

Utrecht University. She is interested in the

behavioral effects of accountability in the

public sector.

Email: m.aleksovska@uu.nl

Research Article

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 82, Iss. 1, pp. 132–146. © 2021 The

Authors. Public Administration Review

published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13357.