Managing paradoxes in the public sector: a systematic and problematizing review of macro-level concepts

IF 2.5 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Daniela Schädeli, Adrian Ritz
{"title":"Managing paradoxes in the public sector: a systematic and problematizing review of macro-level concepts","authors":"Daniela Schädeli, Adrian Ritz","doi":"10.1108/ijpsm-11-2023-0330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This article investigates different terms and concepts of paradox dimensions in Public Administration because these terms are often used interchangeably. The aim is to reveal the theoretically based macro-level concepts and establish a common ground for a shared dialogue about managing paradoxes in the field.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This article uses a complementary review approach. First, a systematic literature review is executed to identify the macro-level paradox concepts and to capture their theoretical common ground. Second, the problematizing literature review aims to reflect Public Administration literature with literature from outside the field, mainly from Organization Studies and General Management.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>For the most part, the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration are used to illustrate the context or situation of another research topic, rather than as standalone theories to be conceptually or empirically explored. In 63 out of 589 articles, we found a theoretical definition of the mentioned macro-level paradox concept. This definition refers mainly to the sources of paradoxical situations and focuses less on the decisions and reactions thereto. Based on the review findings, an analytical model for the management of paradoxical situations in the public sector is provided and applied, followed by recommendations for further research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This article aims to combine the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration with the insights of Paradox Theory and reveals that paradoxes could be a core topic in the field. Scholars in Public Administration could approach paradoxical situations from their own perspective while simultaneously strengthening the field’s identity by encouraging multiperspectivity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47437,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Sector Management","volume":"130 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Sector Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-11-2023-0330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This article investigates different terms and concepts of paradox dimensions in Public Administration because these terms are often used interchangeably. The aim is to reveal the theoretically based macro-level concepts and establish a common ground for a shared dialogue about managing paradoxes in the field.

Design/methodology/approach

This article uses a complementary review approach. First, a systematic literature review is executed to identify the macro-level paradox concepts and to capture their theoretical common ground. Second, the problematizing literature review aims to reflect Public Administration literature with literature from outside the field, mainly from Organization Studies and General Management.

Findings

For the most part, the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration are used to illustrate the context or situation of another research topic, rather than as standalone theories to be conceptually or empirically explored. In 63 out of 589 articles, we found a theoretical definition of the mentioned macro-level paradox concept. This definition refers mainly to the sources of paradoxical situations and focuses less on the decisions and reactions thereto. Based on the review findings, an analytical model for the management of paradoxical situations in the public sector is provided and applied, followed by recommendations for further research.

Originality/value

This article aims to combine the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration with the insights of Paradox Theory and reveals that paradoxes could be a core topic in the field. Scholars in Public Administration could approach paradoxical situations from their own perspective while simultaneously strengthening the field’s identity by encouraging multiperspectivity.

公共部门的管理悖论:对宏观概念的系统化和问题化审查
本文研究了公共行政中悖论维度的不同术语和概念,因为这些术语经常被交替使用。目的是揭示以理论为基础的宏观层面的概念,并建立一个共同的基础,以便就该领域的悖论管理进行共同对话。首先,进行系统的文献综述,以确定宏观层面的悖论概念,并捕捉其理论共同点。研究结果在大多数情况下,公共管理中的宏观悖论概念是用来说明另一个研究课题的背景或情况,而不是作为独立的理论进行概念或实证探索。在 589 篇文章中的 63 篇中,我们发现了所提及的宏观层面悖论概念的理论定义。该定义主要涉及悖论情况的来源,而较少关注对悖论情况的决定和反应。本文旨在将公共管理中的宏观悖论概念与悖论理论的见解相结合,并揭示了悖论可以成为该领域的核心议题。公共管理领域的学者可以从各自的视角来探讨悖论情况,同时通过鼓励多视角性来加强该领域的特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Public Sector Management (IJPSM) publishes academic articles on the management, governance, and reform of public sector organizations around the world, aiming to provide an accessible and valuable resource for academics and public managers alike. IJPSM covers the full range of public management research including studies of organizations, public finances, performance management, Human Resources Management, strategy, leadership, accountability, integrity, collaboration, e-government, procurement, and more. IJPSM encourages scholars to publish their empirical research and is particularly interested in comparative findings. IJPSM is open to articles using a variety of research methods and theoretical approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信