Call for Papers

Digital transformation has revolutionized organizations and their organizational arrangements, e.g., workflow, teamwork, leadership styles, and organizational culture (Bunker, 2020; Mascio et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2020; Välikangas & Lewin, 2020; Yang, 2020). Specifically in the public sector, digital transformation approaches are linked to the changing civil societies’ expectations of public administrations’ need to deliver high-value, real-time digital services. Governments – and the public sector in general – are changing their mode of operation to improve service delivery, be more efficient and effective in their designs, and achieve objectives such as increased transparency, interoperability, collaboration, and citizen satisfaction (Mergel et al., 2019). Technology is seen as a triple perspective: to transform service delivery, to transform public organizational culture and relationships with citizens, and to transform value creation as a transformation outcome (Scupola & Mergel, 2022).
 
Thus, new digital technology advances, e.g., applications, work tools, platforms, and social networking, are getting faster and often challenging for individuals and organizations, including the public sector (Sudarmo, 2020). The pandemic was a considerable challenge to human resources management (HRM) at a time of organizational crisis (van der Wal, 2020; Wang et al., 2009). It favored the diffusion of more flexible forms of work (Jeyasingham, 2016; Gratton, 2021; Petani & Mengis, 2023; Bal & Izak, 2021; Molino et al., 2020). These new forms of work include smart working, which has been widely adopted and has rapidly revolutionized work practices intending to enhance employee performance, flexibility, and autonomy (Todisco et al., 2023; Tomo, 2023). Furthermore, this represented a great challenge, especially for the public sector, which often found itself unprepared for this unprecedented change (Tomo, 2023; van der Wal, 2020; Wang et al., 2009). Moreover, it challenged civil servants to adapt rapidly and develop creative problem-solving procedures. Houtgraaf et al. (2021) in their study defined a taxonomy of practices: (1) creative thinking, (2) discretion, (3) experimenting, (4) networking, (5) transferring, and (6) outsourcing to the private sector.
 
While innovation is entirely acknowledged in the private sector, the public sector still suffers from a historically recognized resistance to innovation and creativity, mainly characterizing the bureaucratic model (Tomo, 2018), a limit that has not been fully addressed even by more NPM-oriented administrations (Kärreman & Alvesson, 2009; Lapsley, 2009; Thomas & Davies, 2005). Thus, the pandemic first and the current multiple crisis context tested public governance systems at all levels across countries, demanding adaptation, agile modification, and pragmatic governance solutions (Scognamiglio et al., 2023). The excessive slowness and rigidity of the public sector represent one of the main reasons why it often tends to rely upon external sources of collaboration to search for flexibility and innovation in the execution of specific projects.
 
However, too many studies excessively promoted the rhetoric of reforms (Kickert, 2011) and their actual implementation, focusing mainly on macro-level analysis of compliance to new legal frameworks introducing management procedures or performance management systems and on external dimensions (public-private partnerships and other institutional and network related initiatives) while leaving aside the focus on individual dimensions and other issues internal to the organization (Tomo, 2018). On the other hand, the increasing relevance of external relationships over the last years has led to a stark shift to managerialism and marketization that entails an increasing dependence on outsourcing (e.g., Horrocks, 2009; Wargent et al., 2020) and other commercial forms of knowledge and expertise, as typically represented by a parallel increasing presence of management consultants (Kirkpatrick et al., 2018; this is most evident in the notion of ‘consultocracy’, see: Ylönen & Kuusela, 2019). The shift to an increasing dependence on external and marketized expertise in the sector is controversial and highly problematic (Furusten & Werr, 2017; O’Mahoney & Sturdy, 2016; Tomo, 2018). Little attention has been paid to what such contradictions produce regarding public sector organizing and how the reforms impact public organization at the micro-level, such as personnel strategies, HR policies, training schemes, ethical conduct, and public service design and delivery.
 
To address the novelty of the Colloquium theme on creativity that makes-to-last first, it, therefore, becomes crucial to extend studies on the role of leadership in creative and innovative processes within the public sector (e.g., Schwarz et al., 2020) by looking at its influence on internal human resource management. How do public civil servants apply the concept of creativity in the workplace for public sector innovation to look for long-term solutions to persistent or emerging social problems? Moreover, the collaboration with external sources of knowledge and expertise also pays attention to the dark side of excessive reliance upon external parties. These aspects become even more central considering the recent push to digital forms of working due to the pandemic that is requiring private organizations as well as public administrations to search for more agile and flexible organizational models driven by different, renewed, and ‘fresher’ HRM practices (Medeiros et al., 2022). This also implies the development of knowledge management and training of new competencies and skills for public employees to be able to work in new digital environments and more complex contexts (e.g., Neumann & Schott, 2023; Schwarz et al., 2020; Todisco et al., 2023; Tomo, 2023).
 
On these grounds, in this sub-theme, one of the few (or probably the only one) concerning issues related to the public sector which is run since 2018 at EGOS Colloquia, we invite critical and constructive papers theoretically or empirically addressing the challenges related to new trends in HRM in the public sector, the role of creative workplace and supportive leadership in innovative processes, the effects of digital transformation on HRM practices, the role of technology within the public sector, the role of external collaboration on creative and innovative processes, and HRM relationship with individual and organizational acts of reactions, resistance, engagement and coping with the digital transformation.
 
We invite contributions that focus on a wide range of issues, including, but not limiting to, the following:

• the impact of HR strategy on nurturing workforce and place embracing creativity and innovation;

• the transformation of working practices and organizational models in the public sector after the pandemic and the spread of digital technologies;

• the effects of agile forms of working on management practices, knowledge management, leadership, strategy, sustainability, and recruiting;

• the implications of new forms of working on individual well-being, work-life balance as well as on their identities;

• the effects of algorithms, artificial intelligence, and other advanced forms of technology on HRM and other organizational practices;

• the logic, practices, and values involved in replacing human-centric creativity with creativity generated by artificial intelligence;

• the role of collaboration with external partners in creative and innovative processes within the public sector;

• the power/resistance dynamics, reactions, and identity processes related to digital transformation;

• the strategies to overcoming barriers to innovation in a bureaucratic system;

• the comparison of the outcomes of internally and/or externally driven innovation in the public sector;

• the challenges of managerial competence development and the role of civil servant training, HRM policies, and organizational strategies in managing conflicting objectives and demands and coping with innovation, reforms, and macro changes such as digital transformation;

• the presentation of case studies for talent development, training, and retention in the public sector

• the comparative analysis of cross-sectoral and cross-national experiences of public management reforms, focusing on the deconstruction/reconstruction of cultural, professional and creative paradigms and identities within administrations.

References

• Bal, P.M., & Izak, M. (2021): “Paradigms of flexibility: a systematic review of research on workplace flexibility.” European Management Review, 18 (1), 37–50.

• Bunker, D. (2020): “Who do you trust? The digital destruction of shared situational awareness and the COVID-19 infodemic.” International Journal of Information Management, 55, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401220311555.
• Furusten, S., & Werr, A. (2017): The Organization of the Expert Society. New York: Routledge.
• Gratton, L. (2021): “Four principles to ensure hybrid work is productive work.” MIT Sloan Management Review, 62 (2), 11A–16A.
• Horrocks, I. (2009): “‘Experts’ and E-Government: Power, influence and the capture of a policy domain in the UK.” Information, Communication & Society, 12 (1), 110–127.
• Houtgraaf, G., & Kruyen, P.M. (2023): “Public sector creativity as the origin of public sector innovation: A taxonomy and future research agenda.” Public Administration, 101 (2), 539–556.
• Jeyasingham, D. (2016): “Open spaces, supple bodies? Considering the impact of agile working on social work office practices.” Child and Family Social Work, 21 (2), 209–217.
• Kärreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2009): “Resisting resistance: Counter-resistance, consent and compliance in a consultancy firm.” Human Relations, 62 (8), 1115–1144.
• Kickert, W.J.M. (2011): “Distinctiveness of Administrative Reform in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Common Characteristics of Context, Administrations and Reforms.” Public Administration, 89 (3), 801–818.
• Kirkpatrick, I., Sturdy, A., Reguera Alvarado, N., Blanco-Oliver, A., & Veronesi, G. (2018): “The impact of management consultants on public service efficiency.” Policy & Politics, 47 (1), 770–795.
• Lapsley, I. (2009): “New Public Management: The Cruellest Invention of the Human Spirit?” ABACUS, 45 (1), 1–21.
• Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019): “Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews.” Government Information Quarterly, 36 (4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002.
• Neumann, O., & Schott, C. (2023): “Behavioral effects of public service motivation among citizens: testing the case of digital co-production.” International Public Management Journal, 26 (2), 175–198.
• O’Mahoney, J., & Sturdy, A. (2016): “Power and the diffusion of management ideas: The case of McKinsey & Co.” Management Learning, 47 (3), 247–265.
• Petani, F.J., & Mengis, J. (2023): “Technology and the hybrid workplace: the affective living of IT-enabled space.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34 (8), 1530–1553.
• Schuster, C., Weitzman, L., Sass Mikkelsen, K., Meyer-Sahling, J., et al. (2020): “Responding to COVID-19 through Surveys of Public Servants.” Public Administration Review, 80 (5), 792–796.
• Schwarz, G., Eva, N., & Newman, A. (2020): “Can public leadership increase public service motivation and job performance?” Public Administration Review, 80 (4), 543–554.
• Scognamiglio, F., Sancino, A., Caló, F., Jacklin-Jarvis, C., & Rees, J. (2023): “The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency.” Public Administration, 101 (1), 53–70.
• Scupola, A., & Mergel, I. (2022): Co-production in the digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark.” Government Information Quarterly, 39 (1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650.
• Sudarmo, S. (2020): “Human resources management and leadership for public services in the 21st century.” International Journal of Business, Economics & Management, 3 (1), 219–225.
• Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005): “Theorizing the Micro-politics of Resistance: New Public Management and Managerial Identities in the UK Public Services.” Organization Studies, 26 (5), 683–706.
• Todisco, L., Tomo, A., Canonico, P., & Mangia, G. (2023): “The bright and dark side of smart working in the public sector: employees’ experiences before and during COVID-19.” Management Decision, 61 (13), 85–102.
• Tomo, A. (2018): Managerialism in the Public Sector. Perspectives and Prospects. London: Routledge.
• Tomo, A. (2023): Identity in the Public Sector: A Complex Journey Between Identity Features, Struggles and Dimensions. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Välikangas, L., & Lewin, A.Y. (2020): “The lingering new normal.” Management and Organization Review, 16 (3), 467–472.
• Van der Wal, Z. (2020): “Being a public manager in times of crisis: The art of managing stakeholders, political masters, and collaborative networks.” Public Administration Review, 80 (5), 759–764.
• Wang, J., Hutchins, H.M., & Garavan, T.N. (2009): “Exploring the strategic role of human resource development in organizational crisis management.” Human Resource Development Review, 8 (1), 22–53.
• Wargent, M., Parker, G., & Street, E. (2020): “Public-private entanglements: consultant use by local planning authorities in England.” European Planning Studies, 28 (1), 192–210.
• Yang, K. (2020): “Unprecedented challenges, familiar paradoxes: COVID‐19 and governance in a new normal state of risks.” Public Administration Review, 80 (4), 657–664.
• Ylönen, M., & Kuusela, H. (2019): “Consultocracy and its discontents: A critical typology and a call for a research agenda.” Governance, 32 (2), 241–258.
•