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.
To continue reading
Request your trial