Public Professionals’ Engagement in Coproduction: The Impact of the Work Environment on Elderly Care Managers’ Perceptions on Collaboration With Client Councils

• Date: 01 August 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074019840759
• Published date: 01 August 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

840759ARPXXX10.1177/0275074019840759The American Review of Public Administrationvan Eijk et al.
research-article2019
Article
American Review of Public Administration
2019, Vol. 49(6) 733 –748
Public Professionals’ Engagement in
© The Author(s) 2019
Coproduction: The Impact of the Work
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019840759
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Environment on Elderly Care Managers’
DOI: 10.1177/0275074019840759
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
Perceptions on Collaboration With
Client Councils
Carola van Eijk1 , Trui Steen2, and René Torenvlied3
Abstract
In the context of public service delivery, public professionals nowadays intensively collaborate with citizens. The joint,
sometimes mandatorily, efforts of citizens and professionals to provide public services have become known as “coproduction.”
Although coproduction directly affects professionals’ work environment, professionals’ attitudes toward coproduction are
hardly studied. This article explains variation in professionals’ engagement in coproduction from characteristics of their
work environment, specifically their perceived level of autonomy, perceived organizational support for coproduction, and
perceived red tape associated with coproduction activities. Survey research was conducted to question managers of Dutch
organizations for elderly care about their interaction with client councils, an example of coproduction activities in the
domain of health care. The results show that perceived autonomy in coproduction, red tape associated with coproduction,
and organizational support affect professionals’ engagement. Organizational support moreover reinforces the effect of work
autonomy on professionals’ perception on the importance of coproduction. These findings add to the study of coproduction
and can help support public organizations to improve coproduction.
Keywords
coproduction of public services, autonomy, organizational support, red tape, client councils in organizations for elderly care
Introduction
public services delivered and produced (Bovaird & Löffler,
2012; Brandsen & Honingh, 2016; Brandsen, Pestoff, &
For decades, public administration has struggled with the
Verschuere, 2012).
question of how to bring the general public into administra-
The introduction of coproduction in the activities of pub-
tive processes. Involvement of the public in administrative
lic professionals directly affects their work environment.
processes concerns not only citizens’ rights and responsibili-
Coproduction requires public professionals to share their
ties but also how public professionals “view themselves and
power, tasks, and responsibilities with citizen-users. Thus,
their responsibilities relative to citizens” (Thomas, 1999, p.
coproducers and public professionals become collaborators
83). Public professionals operate in constantly changing
in an effort to secure continuity and quality in the delivery of
environments, directly affecting their role perceptions vis-à-
public services (Brandsen et al., 2012; Ewert & Evers, 2012).
vis citizens (cf. Osborne, 2010).
Like other kinds of collaboration, coproduction implies
In many administrative systems, coproduction is intro-
that public professionals’ perception of coproduction impacts
duced, sometimes mandatorily, to involve the public in pub-
on the effectiveness of coproduction. Walter (1987), for
lic service delivery (Osborne, Radnor, & Nasi, 2012; Osborne
example, shows how public managers create meaning, and
& Strokosch, 2013). The development of coproduction is,
among other things, induced by austerity measures in public
1Leiden University, The Hague, The Netherlands
finances and associated with a legitimacy crisis in public sec-
2KU Leuven, Belgium
tor and private market performance. Coproduction can be
3University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
defined as a process in which citizens co-plan, co-design, co-
Corresponding Author:
prioritize, co-finance, co-deliver, and/or co-assess public ser-
Carola van Eijk, Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, Attn.
vices alongside their “traditional” producers (i.e., public
C. Van Eijk, P.O. Box 13228, 2501 EE The Hague, The Netherlands.
professionals)—with the aim of enhancing the quality of
Email: c.j.a.van.eijk@fgga.leidenuniv.nl

---

734
American Review of Public Administration 49(6)
clarify roles, to stimulate volunteering by citizens. Lemos
public service delivery process (Brandsen & Honingh, 2016;
and Morehouse (2005) argue that demonstrated openness to
Ostrom, 1996). This broad definition should not be confused
incorporate stakeholders is crucial for establishing trust and
with strict definitions used in, for example, literature on pro-
credibility in coproduction.
fessionalism (cf. Freidson, 1994, 2001). Although in litera-
Despite a long-standing coproduction research tradition
ture on professionalism the features on jobs that can be
(cf. Calabrò, 2012; Verschuere, Brandsen, & Pestoff, 2012),
labeled as “professional” are rather strict, in coproduction
the attitudes of public professionals toward coproduction are
literature, for example, also the managers responsible for
hardly studied. Indeed, Fenwick (2012) concludes that
collaboration with citizens are labeled professional.
empirical studies “at the front lines of everyday practice” are
Although many scholars perceive coproduction as highly
rare. This article fills this gap by studying public profession-
valuable (cf. Calabrò, 2012), as such it does not occur spon-
als’ self-reported engagement in coproduction. Engagement
taneously. To secure benefits from coproduction, an essential
in coproduction comprises three dimensions: perceived
precondition is that both citizens and public service profes-
importance of coproduction, perceived impact of coproduc-
sionals are truly engaged in coproduction (Loeffler & Hine-
tion, and personal involvement in coproduction. This article
Hughes, 2013; Ostrom, 1996). The mutual engagement of
seeks to explain variation in public officials’ engagement
citizens and public service professionals can—in part—be
from characteristics of their work environment, more in par-
stimulated by (selective) incentives (e.g., the establishment
ticular their perceived level of autonomy, perceived organi-
of contracts) and emerges when credible commitment and
zational support for coproduction, and perceived red tape
trust between coproduction partners is built (Ostrom, 1996).
associated with coproduction activities.
Engagement in coproduction has been, and almost exclu-
Empirically, we study variation in public officials’ engage-
sively, studied from the perspective of citizens. Thomsen
ment in coproduction in the context of client councils in
(2017), for example, shows that the effort citizens put into
Dutch elderly care. As collaboration with these client coun-
coproduction highly varies with individual characteristics
cils is enforced by law, this case provides the unique opportu-
(i.e., their knowledge of how to coproduce and their self-
nity to investigate whether and why professionals share
efficacy). The imperative of collaboration in coproduction
similar viewpoints on this collaboration. Client councils in
requires that public service professionals are also engaged in
Dutch elderly organizations collaborate with the location
coproduction: willing to listen to the ideas and concerns of
manager on issues of organizational (strategic) management
clients and actively sharing information. An attitude toward
and quality of the health care provided to the elderly clients.
collaboration encourages citizens to keep motivated (Van
So, our case is about co-planning as a specific form of copro-
Eijk & Steen, 2016). “Managers who are personally involved
duction. Thus, the research question is as follows:
with users’ activities, who are being helpful and whose lead-
ership style is less hierarchical, are more likely able to create
Research Question: How do location managers’ percep-
a feeling of reciprocity among the group of participants”
tions of their autonomy, organizational support, and red
(Fledderus, 2015, p. 561).
tape explain their engagement in coproduction with client
Thus, it is important professionals are not just involved in
councils in Dutch organizations for elderly care?
coproduction but feel really engaged with the collaboration
with citizens. Involvement means that a professional takes
The next section presents theoretical insights that link
part in the collaboration (e.g., as the result of a legal obliga-
public professionals’ autonomy and perceptions of organiza-
tion). Engagement, moreover, implies that a professional is
tional support for and of red tape in coproduction to their
also willing to actively partake in the coproduction effort—
engagement in coproduction. For each of these explanations
convinced that collaboration is important, persuaded by its
we derive hypotheses. Subsequently, we describe the empiri-
usefulness and functionality, and committed to collaboration.
cal context of Dutch client councils followed by a section on
Hence, even when professionals have little discretion in the
study design and research methods. Results of the analyses
process of coproduction, their attitude remains highly impor-
are presented and implications for research and practice are
tant for its success.
discussed.
Characteristics of...