On Justification Work: How Compromising Enables Public Managers to Deal with Conflicting Values
Published date | 01 January 2014 |
Date | 01 January 2014 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12153 |
Lieke Oldenhof is a doctoral student
in health care management in the Institute
of Health Policy and Management at
Erasmus University in the Netherlands. Her
research explores the mundane activities of
middle managers, the role of language, and
discursive practices. She uses qualitative
methods, including shadowing and in-depth
interviews. In addition to her academic
research, she works as advisor for the Dutch
Council for Public Health and Health Care.
E-mail: oldenhof@bmg.eur.nl
Jeroen Postma is a doctoral student
in the Institute of Health Policy and
Management at Erasmus University in the
Netherlands. He is currently writing his doc-
toral thesis on organizational scale in health
care. His research interests include hybridity,
professionalism, and the work of managers
throughout the public sector. He is also
working as a researcher and consultant for
Dutch consultancy fi rm BMC.
E-mail: postma@bmg.eur.nl
Kim Putters is professor of health
policy and governance in the Institute of
Health Policy and Management at Erasmus
University Rotterdam. He has been working
on issues of governance and leadership
since 1996. His doctoral thesis (2001) was
on entrepreneurship in Dutch hospitals, and
his inaugural address (2009) was on hybrid
health care governance. He is also director
of the Netherlands Institute for Social
Research in The Hague.
E-mail: putters@bmg.eur.nl
52 Public Administration Review • January | February 2014
Public Administration Review,
Vol. 74, Iss. 1, pp. 52–63. © 2013 by
The American Society for Public Administration.
DOI: 10.1111/puar.12153.
Lieke Oldenhof
Jeroen Postma
Kim Putters
Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands
In the public administration literature, a variety of
responses to value confl icts have been described, such
as trade-off s, decoupling values, and incrementalism.
Yet little attention has been paid to the possibility of
constructive compromises that enable public managers to
deal with confl icting values simultaneously rather than
separately. e authors use Luc Boltanski and Laurent
évenot’s theory of justifi cation to extend current con-
ceptualizations of management of confl icting values. On
the basis of a qualitative study of daily practices of Dutch
health care managers (executives and middle manag-
ers), they show how compromises are constructed and
justifi ed to signifi cant others. Because compromises are
fragile and open to criticism, managers have to perform
continuous “justifi cation work” that entails not only the
use of rhetoric but also the adaption of behavior and
material objects. By inscribing compromises into objects
and behavior, managers are able to solidify compromises,
thereby creating temporary stability in times of public
sector change.
Policy issues in the public domain are often
characterized by multiple confl icting values
(Bozeman 2007; Koppenjan, Charles, and Ryan
2008; Loyens 2009; Spicer 2009; Steenhuisen, Dicke,
and De Bruijn 2009; Van der Wal, De Graaf, and
Lawton 2011). Recurring examples of value confl icts
include dilemmas between effi ciency and equity (Le
Grand 1990), effi ciency and democratic legitimacy
(Weihe 2008), and equity and liberty (Stone 2002).
Public managers face these value
confl icts in their daily work and
have to fi nd ways to manage the
tensions between contradictory
values.
Scholars have described a
variety of responses to value
confl icts, ranging from trade-
off s and decoupling values from one another to
incrementalism and case-by-case assessments of
value confl icts (Steenhuisen 2009; Stewart 2009;
acher and Rein 2004). Despite these valuable
contributions, to date, researchers have paid little
attention to the possibility of producing constructive
compromises that incorporate multiple confl ict-
ing values. In day-to-day decision making, public
managers frequently make compromises, as they
have to deal with confl icting values simultaneously
rather than separately or sequentially (Boltanski and
évenot 2006; Brandsen, Van de Donk, and Putters
2005; Dunn and Jones 2010; Karré 2011; Oldenhof
and Putters 2011). Yet they are often portrayed as
constrained agents who have “to conform with or
deviate from abstract institutional logics” (Patriotta,
Gond, and Schulz 2011, 1808). Patriotta, Gond,
and Schulz therefore call for studies that investigate
the active role of organizational actors in construct-
ing legitimate compromises, especially in environ-
ments in which “the harmonious arrangements of
things and persons is always ‘up for grabs’” (2011,
1806).
Another gap in the literature concerns the question of
how public managers justify compromises to them-
selves and to the outer world (Jagd 2011; Patriotta,
Gond, and Schulz 2011). Jagd observes that “relatively
few empirical studies explicitly focus on the com-
plex processes involved in justifi cation, critique, and
attempts to produce compromises in organizations”
(2011, 355). He asserts that “empirical studies of ‘jus-
tifi cation work’ may be a potentially very promising
focus for future empirical studies” (43).
In this article, we begin to fi ll in
the gaps in the public manage-
ment research on confl icting
values by focusing on compro-
mises and justifi cation work. We
use Boltanski and évenot’s
theory of justifi cation (Boltanski
and évenot 1991, 1999,
2000, 2006) to analyze how managers reconcile
justifi cations in order to deal with confl icting val-
ues. In line with Boltanski and évenot (2006),
we defi ne a justifi cation as a logical and harmonious
On Justifi cation Work: How Compromising Enables Public
Managers to Deal with Confl icting Values
In this article, we begin to fi ll in
the gaps in the public manage-
ment research on confl icting
values by focusing on compro-
mises and justifi cation work.
To continue reading
Request your trial