Managerialism and Its Consequences for Professional Identity: A Comparative Analysis of GPs and Secondary School Teachers

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399721993744
• Date: 01 September 2021
• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399721993744

Administration & Society

2021, Vol. 53(8) 1178 –1202

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399721993744

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Managerialism and

Its Consequences for

Professional Identity:

A Comparative Analysis

of GPs and Secondary

School Teachers

Wiljan (P.M.A.) Hendrikx1

Abstract

Literature on the consequences of managerial reform for professionals in

public services has often taken the professions as universal phenomenon,

unaffected by sectoral heterogeneity. However, focusing on professionals’

own perspectives, this study notes important similarities and variations

between professionals from two domains—GPs and teachers. The findings

are attributed to professional identity values of excellence, ethics, and

engagement, against which reforms were directed, and to the capacity of

different professional groups to develop strategies based on these values.

Suggesting that the professional identity of specific professions is key creates

different conditions and consequences for introducing new management

practices.

Keywords

managerialism, professional identity, GPs, teachers, sectoral variation

1The Netherlands School of Public Administration, Den Haag, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Wiljan (P.M.A.) Hendrikx, The Netherlands School of Public Administration, Lange Voorhout

17, Den Haag 2514 EB, The Netherlands.

Email: hendrikx@nsob.nl

993744AASXXX10.1177/0095399721993744Administration & SocietyHendrikx

research-article2021

Hendrikx 1179

Introduction

Despite increasing attention for professional roles in collaborative gover-

nance approaches (Aschhoff & Vogel, 2019; Steen & Tuurnas, 2018), over

three decades of public management reforms leading to managerial changes

have left a clear mark on public services in most western countries (Hendrikx

& Van Gestel, 2017; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2017). “Managerialism” refers to

“governmental public policy diffusing managerial thinking into public orga-

nizations to measurably improve organizational efficiency” (McGivern et al.,

2015). Even new collaborative forms like network governance and co-pro-

duction of public services with citizens (Aschhoff & Vogel, 2019; Osborne

et al., 2016; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011; Tuurnas, 2015) are often still steered

by managerial means, for example, by encouraging collaboration through

financial incentives, by protocolizing professional practices and by measur-

ing performance for transparency purposes.

Although literature provides us with many overviews of these managerial

reforms, few systematically compare what the consequences are for the pro-

fessionals who are responsible for public service delivery within those mana-

gerialized contexts (Adams, 2015; Mauri & Muccio, 2012). Professions can

be described as institutionalized occupations (Abbott, 1988; Evetts, 2013),

whose members are granted a certain amount of autonomy and prestige

to deliver services that are key to society (Gardner & Shulman, 2005;

Noordegraaf, 2015). Although its exact characteristics are up for scholarly

debate, professionalism is commonly associated with high-skilled exclusive

expertise, objectivity, and altruism often captured in (implicit) ethical codes,

and workers’ commitment to clients and profession (Abbott, 1988; Gardner

& Shulman, 2005; Leicht, 2016). Most scholars have studied the conse-

quences of managerialism for a single profession (Brodkin, 2011; McGivern

et al., 2015; Shams, 2019), or infer general (inter)national trends (Dent et al.,

2016; Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2011; Leicht et al., 2009) without sectoral

specificities. This does leave us with the question whether results of single-

case studies or of the more abstract and generalized trends are relevant to all

domains, or may need further specification. Therefore, despite few excep-

tions (see Klenk & Pavolini, 2015; Turner et al., 2016), more comparative

analyses of the impact of managerialism on professionals across various pro-

fessional domains are necessary (Adams, 2015; Hendrikx & Van Gestel,

2017).

This is particularly true for the perspectives of professionals themselves

(Denis et al., 2015), whereas managerialism has implied changes at public

sector level (macro-level) and at the level of individual public services orga-

nizations or policy networks (meso-level). However, much remains unknown