Public sector innovation for the managerial and the post-managerial era: Promises and realities in a globalizing public administration

This article deals with the fuzzy concept of organizational innovation in public sector domains. While it is not the first attempt to bring organizational innovation into the realm of public administration, the article provides a broader understanding of innovation in modern bureaucracies and points to some empirical efforts that may accelerate post-public managerial reforms. This understanding builds on a system approach and on existing knowledge about innovation—its characteristics, antecedents, and consequences as they have been previously encountered in the private business arena. We suggest that this knowledge should be treated as another key element of New Public Management (NPM) doctrine and the reinventing government paradigm that have dominated discussions in this discipline in recent years. The article presents a clearer perception of the innovation process, its unique meaning for modern bureaucracies, and its potential evolution into reform-seeking governance. We conclude that innovative bureaucracy is not necessarily a self-defeating concept. Bridging the gap between the promise and the realities of innovation has never been an easy task. Turning ideals into realities is still a major challenge facing public administration reform, now and for the foreseeable future. The concepts of innovation and bureaucracy seem to be almost mutually exclusive. Much of the criticism of bureaucracy is that it does not suffer innovation gladly. Bureaucracies of various types and in many cultures are more comfortable with conservative work patterns. They tend to follow strict rules and methods that have proven to work reasonably well in the past and are reluctant to replace them with new, unconventional techniques and ideas that may seem risky or complicated. While this cautious attitude is true for almost Direct all correspondence to: Eran Vigoda-Gadot, Division of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel. E-mail: eranv@poli.haifa. ac.il International Public Management Journal, 8(1), pages 57–81 Copyright © 2005 by Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1096-7494 58 International Public Management Journal Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005 every organization, bureaucracies need to overcome another hurdle on the road to effective renewal. This barrier is the mindset of public officials as policymakers and citizens as end users. For many years bureaucracies did not need to compete in the free market arena, and therefore no real pressure was put on them to update their services and become involved in the reinvention game (Thompson and Ingraham 1996). Competition, which is the leading motivator for innovation in the private sector and in a free-market society, was perceived as less significant for old-style bureaucracies. In addition, changes were stymied by the reluctance of public sector leadership to become involved in extensive innovative projects. Similarly, innovation is perceived as an engine for modernization. It increases competitiveness in large companies, smaller organizations, and even nongovernmental organizations such as VNPOs (voluntary and not-for-profit organizations) by making them more flexible and responsive to market needs. However, innovation and bureaucracy seem to make an odd couple (Borins 2001). In fact, many of the values we associate with bureaucracy—hierarchy, specialization, and impersonality—stand in sharp contrast to the flexibility, adaptability, creativity, and risk taking we associate with innovation in modern organizations. Nonetheless, organizational innovation lies within the very fabric of modern societies. The development and improvement of public agencies is largely inspired by the willingness to make important changes at the right time and place (Rogers 1983). Just as the private sector has recognized innovation as the driving force behind remaining competitive, so too must public sector organizations realize that only through innovation can they continue to grow and develop. Hence, it is quite surprising to find that the topic of innovation has played only a minor role in the discussion about the renewal of public administration. Moreover, the vast body of knowledge about innovation, entrepreneurship, and proactiveness in business management has never been used extensively in public management. Thus, the prime goal of this article is to suggest a broader understanding for the study of innovation in modern bureaucracies and to point to some empirical efforts that may accelerate post-public managerial reforms. We first review the current status of research in this arena and then go on to argue that innovation should be treated as another key element of New Public Management (NPM) doctrine and the reinventing government paradigm (Berry 1994; Hood 1991; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000). Furthermore, we contend that while theories about private sector innovation are extensive and well established, the same knowledge is not always transferred (or transferable) to modern bureaucracies. While in recent decades innovation has received some attention in public administration and public policy literature, it has not been fully integrated with the NPM approach. Therefore, its impact on current reforms is still marginal. Our logic is based on the system approach towards organizations and its integration with political theories of bureaucracies, as well as with business approaches for managing these work sites (Damanpour 1991). We then go on to present a detailed model of innovation in the public sector that builds on three elements: (a) conventional knowledge about public sector innovation and its characteristics, (b) antecedents of and preconditions to public sector innovation, and (c) consequences of innovation as previously encountered in the private business arena. In many ways, our strategy follows the call for reinventing PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION FOR THE MANAGERIAL AND THE POST-MANAGERIAL ERA 59 government (Osborne and Gaebler 1992) and the impressive efforts to reform the public sector that have been undertaken in the U.S. and across the globe using a business-oriented theory and methods. The article also analyzes current trends in NPM thinking in an attempt to pinpoint where new frontiers in this realm may arise. We argue that a more solid, systematic, and empirically oriented understanding of innovation can be used to reform our governmental structures and administrative processes, and by so doing to revitalize modern bureaucracies, communities, and societies. DEFINING INNOVATION IN THE DOMINION OF STATE AND BUREAUCRACY Rogers (1983, 11) defines innovation as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or another unit of adoption. ” In the context of states, governments, and bureaucracies he further cites Benjamin Franklin who claimed that “to get the bad customs of a country changed and new ones, though better, introduced, it is necessary first to remove the prejudices of the people, enlighten their ignorance, and convince them that their interests will be promoted by the proposed changes; and this is not the work of a day. ” In fact, most writings on the topic assume that innovation is by definition good and that increased innovation is better for organizations and society (Kimberly 1981). Consequently, managers and politicians are usually urged to increase innovation in any possible way. However, other views dispute this assumption, arguing that some innovations have harmful effects that negate whatever benefits they bring. Bureaucrats usually warn against the bad side of innovation and prefer to maintain old but good managerial mechanisms, tools, and processes. Indeed, the same innovation may be suitable for one adopter in one situation or arena but unsuitable for another in a different situation or arena (Rogers 1983), and many innovations become harmful only with the passage of time (Abrahamson 1991; Kimberly and de Pouvourville 1993). Thus, it is necessary to examine innovations in the proper environmental context, cultural landscape, and over a period of time. Moreover, the emergence of an innovative idea may differ substantially from the complete innovative process. The evolution of a creative idea into a practical organizational change is usually classified as an innovative process. An ideal type of a good innovative process is characterized by the strong motivation of individuals, groups, and organizations to acquire new information and increase their sources of knowledge about a relevant problem in order to stabilize a turbulent social system. It also involves conceptual openness, pragmatism, and practical methods that can turn a promising idea into an ongoing productive change. Nonetheless, there are many valuable ideas, promising reforms, and change-seeking actions in public administration that fail to have any level of success. When such a process pits the public good against the conflicting interests of political players, the social cost of this unsuccessful innovation exceeds one’s wildest imagination. Putting it other way, when we compare the consequences of ineffective innovation processes in the public sector with other ineffective innovations in the private sector, the costs of the former seem to exceed those of the latter. 60 International Public Management Journal Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005 Yet, what are the reasons for such failures? Can we provide reasonable explanations for the various shortcomings of public policy and management that stymied innovation when all the signs clearly indicated a need for change? What are the theoretical tools that can enhance such understanding? Can these explanations contribute to better practical innovative dynamics for bureaucracies in the future? These questions are of the utmost importance for the field. ANALYZING INNOVATION IN THE FACE OF PAST BUREAUCRATIC EXPERIENCES Innovative ideas and policies in the public