Journal of Organizational Change Management

The transformation of work in digitized public sector organizations

Ursula Plesner, Lise Justesen, Cecilie Glerup,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ursula Plesner, Lise Justesen, Cecilie Glerup, (2018) "The transformation of work in digitized public
sector organizations", Journal of Organizational Change Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JOCM-06-2017-0257
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2017-0257
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 16 July 2018, At: 05:00 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:616673 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Digitized
The transformation of work public sector
in digitized public organizations

sector organizations
Ursula Plesner and Lise Justesen
Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School,
Received 30 June 2017
Frederiksberg, Denmark, and Revised 26 November 2017
Cecilie Glerup 1 February 2018
Accepted 4 March 2018
IrisGroup, Copenhagen, Denmark
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine what the authors can learn from organization studies of
digital technologies and changes in public organizations, and to develop a research agenda that allows us to
produce systematic knowledge about how work practices in the public sector change with digitization.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on an analysis of the organizational studies
literature on how digital technologies lead to changes in public sector organization. The literature comprises a
wide range of different case studies, and they are analyzed with a specific focus on the insights they offer
regarding bureaucracy, accountability and professionals.
Findings – The paper identifies various examples of how digital technologies change important aspects of
public sector organizations relating to bureaucracy, accountability and professionals. It is a main finding
that no systematic account exists in the organization literature of changes due to digitization specific to the
public sector.
Practical implications – The knowledge produced by current and future research in this area is directly
applicable for change management. To react productively on the digitization imperative, public managers
need to deepen their knowledge of the organizational dimension of digitization.
Originality/value – The paper proposes an agenda for future research, which has the potential to produce both
systematic and useful knowledge of how digitization changes central aspects of public sector organizations.
Keywords Digitization, Professionals, Public sector organizations, Accountability, STS, Bureaucracy
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Digitization of service and work processes is profoundly changing public sector
organizations across the western world. From government administrations’ electronic
handling of vast amounts of paperwork and digital communication with citizens to the
introduction of robots in home care and smart boards in schools, digitization has become an
essential component of most government reforms. The OECD continuously monitors its
member states’ progress in this regard, as digitization is viewed as a solution to “big issues,”
such as high public expenditures, ineffectiveness, user involvement and the need for
transparency in public administration (OECD, 2009). Some scholars in the field of public
administration refer to digitization of the public sector as e-government (Bekkers and
Homburg, 2005) or digital-era governance (Marhetts, 2009) and suggest that this is a new
and highly influential trend in the public sector, comparable in scope with—and partly
replacing—new public management (Dunleavy et al., 2006).
The aim of this paper is to examine what we can learn from organization studies of
digital technologies and changes in public organizations and to develop a research agenda
that allows us to produce systematic knowledge about how work practices in the public
sector change with digitization. By systematic, we mean cross-organizational research Journal of Organizational Change
Management
highlighting themes, which cut across different sectors and contribute to transforming the © Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
public sector at large. While the changes caused by political reforms on public service have DOI 10.1108/JOCM-06-2017-0257
 JOCM been on both the public and the academic agenda (Du Gay, 2009), the reforms’ recurrent
focus on the digitization of work has curiously not gained much scholarly attention in
organization studies. This is remarkable since the relationship between work, technology
and change has been a central object of study in this field since Taylor’s (1911) principle of
scientific management, followed by classic works showing that different types of
technology have different implications for effective organizational structures
(Galbraith, 1977; Perrow, 1967; Woodward, 1958). Technology is often understood as
“devices” to be implemented in organizations to enhance production or work processes.
By contrast, we draw on an understanding of technology as an unstable, unpredictable
phenomenon. It is shaped by social forces (in our case, e.g. the digitization agenda),
technical design (e.g. specific online platforms) and local users (e.g. public sector managers
and employees).
The pervasiveness of digital technologies in contemporary organizations has led
organization scholars to revitalize the concept of technology in organization studies
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

(e.g. Kallinikos, 2006; Orlikowski, 2007). Most work in the area draws on individual case
studies of organizations in the private sector, and, with some notable exceptions (Pors, 2015;
Introna et al., 2009; Harris, 2006, 2008; Yeo and Marquardt, 2015; Hossan et al., 2013), the
digitization of the public sector remains an underexplored area within organization studies
as well as in the subfield of organizational change management studies. The studies that do
focus on change caused by digitization in public sector organizations tend to focus on the
implementation of a particular technology in a particular public organization, and do not
theorize the public sector as a specific change context (e.g. Hung et al., 2009; Hussenot, 2008).
This is a paradoxical shortcoming in organization studies because much of the literature
insists that technologies, including digital technologies, can only be understood by taking
the specific context into consideration.
The lack of attention to digitization in public organizations corresponds to an overall
fading interest in public sector organizations in organization studies (Arellano-Gault et al.,
2013). A similar tendency to ignore public sector organizations can be observed in the
change management literature. Pick et al. (2015, p. n/a) state that “the change management
literature has tended to focus on the private sector with little attention being paid to the way
public sector workers experience and respond to change.”
In this paper, we argue that the public sector constitutes a specific context for digitization
and that the specificities of public sector organizations should be further examined in order
to contextualize digitalization and its implications for work. We assume that digitization is a
multifaceted phenomenon (Buffat, 2015; Jæger and Löfgren, 2010). It reconfigures public
sector organizations in fundamental, although uneven, ways and changes the daily work-life
of public servants.
The term digitization commonly covers the introduction of a broad range of technologies,
from tracking devices in waste management over digital self-service to new systems of data
production and analysis. But digitization is more than the implementation and use of
particular technologies. In their definition of digitization, Ejersbo and Greve (2017, p. 269)
emphasize a holistic ambition behind digitization: “Digitization focuses on digital changes and
the opportunity to ‘completely embrace’ digital solutions in contact with users/citizens, i.e.
digitizing interactions with citizens and business.” In that way, digitization is not only a
question of technologies but also encompasses a set of managerial and governmental ideas
and ideals centered on the aim of improving the public sector (Dunleavy et al., 2006). Similar to
other public sector reforms, digitization can be understood in terms of a “comprehensive
political intervention” (Bejerot and Hasselbladh, 2013). It involves a fundamental rethinking
and reshaping of the entire public sector and its organizations. In this way, digitization can be
seen as a broad set of practices characterized by normative, programmatic as well as
technological, operational elements (Power, 1999). In line with Power, we understand the
 programmatic elements as “the ideas and concepts that shape the mission of the practice and Digitized
which, crucially, attach the practice to the broader policy objectives which exist in the political public sector
sphere” (Power, 1999, p. 6). The programmatic elements are loosely coupled with the organizations
technological elements, as they are visible in the “concrete tasks and routines which make up
the world of practitioners” (Power, 1999). This implies that digitization takes on a specific form
in the public sector because it becomes entangled with programmatic ideals related to broader
modernization agendas. At the same time, the operational elements—the interactions between
the technology and its local context—result in changes of daily work practices.
The remainder of the article is structured in the following way. First, we argue that
digitization is a major change factor in contemporary organizations, and we point to some
grand utopian and dystopian narratives about the phenomenon. We then turn to different
research traditions, which go beyond the grand narratives and either study implementation
of specific digital technologies in organizations, or analyze digitization as part of public
reform programs. We propose that organization studies’ focus on work practices offer a
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

useful entry point to understanding how work in the public sector is transformed by
digitization. Then, we unfold the argument that public sector organizations operate under
specific conditions and that this issue is underexplored in organization studies. We suggest
that those specific conditions can be captured by a focus on bureaucratic formal structures,
accountability and professions. Next, we conduct an analysis of organization studies
literature on digital technologies and organization in the public sector. We highlight a
number of case-based studies, which illustrate how digital technologies lead to changes in
public sector organizations at the everyday level of the organization. Even if they do not
explicitly address digitization as a broader phenomenon or the public sector as a specific
context, a close reading of these studies in light of the themes of formal bureaucratic
structures, accountability and professions shows that extant research does indicate that
digital technologies affect such key organizational dimensions. On this basis, we argue for
more systematic studies to understand how digitization transforms work in public sector
organizations. We then propose an agenda for further research into the relationship between
digitization and formal bureaucratic structures, accountability and professionals. This is
followed by a reflection on managerial implications and a brief conclusion.

Digitization as a major change factor

In the public debate as well as in popularized research, digitization is often described in
grand future-oriented narratives. Some celebrate it as a means to finally solve efficiency and
quality problems. Others warn us about “the rise of the robots” (Ford, 2015) or the massive
unemployment that will follow in the wake of artificial intelligence (Susskind and Susskind,
2015). Both utopian and dystopian accounts revolve around the fashionable term
“disruption,” but tell us little about how digitization changes everyday work practices at the
concrete level. Whereas the dystopian accounts mostly focus on job redundancies, scattered
evidence suggests that new tasks, structures, roles, relations and responsibilities follow
from digitization. The sweeping grand narratives tend to ignore these multiple
consequences of digitization (Wajcman, 2017).
Furthermore, the public sector is not treated as a specific context by these accounts. This
is notable since digitization is currently a major change factor in the public sector and
substantial investments in digital technologies are made in this sector. Digitization has
become an integrated element of e-government, which some scholars consider a new
movement in public administration (Yeo and Marquardt, 2015). From many sides, public
sector organizations are called upon to develop more ambitious digitization strategies by
“digitizing in depth” or by embracing fourth generation information technology. For
example, public organizations are urged to benefit from the Internet of Things (Watts, 2016)
for instance in the design of smart cities, to profit from big data analyses (Maciejewski, 2017)
 JOCM to support decision making, and to ensure interoperability (Landsbergen and Wolken, 2001)
so that disparate public information systems (IS) begin to “speak to one another.”
A prominent strand of research that does focus specifically on public sector digitization
has been produced by public administration scholars (Pors, 2015). With some notable
exceptions (e.g. Introna et al., 2009; Buffat, 2015), they tend to approach digitization from a
macro perspective as an innovative strategy for organizing public administration and
service delivery (Lips, 2012) and as a supplement to or replacement for NPM (Dunleavy
et al., 2006). The concepts of “e-government” (Bekkers and Homburg, 2005) and “digital-era
governance” (Dunleavy et al., 2006) have been coined by scholars within this field of
research. The public administration literature offers evidence of the scope and the nature of
the digitization agenda, but it says relatively little about the transformation of work and
organization in the digitized public sector.
In clear contrast to the grand narratives mentioned above, but also different from the
macro perspective prevalent in public administration theory, we find several empirically
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

grounded case studies of IT implementation in the field of IS research. The focus here is often
on precisely the implementation and adaptation of specific digital technologies in
organizations. Many of these studies focus on implementation success or failure, and it is a
recurrent finding that user perception makes an important difference in many implementation
projects (e.g. Davis and Hufnagel, 2007). IS research challenges the more speculative accounts
of the “digital age” by bringing attention to the fact that technological development is not
determining organizational issues. They show us that empirically grounded studies are
important if we are to understand the specific consequence of digital technologies because
they take us beyond the policy level and the programmatic aspirations and illustrate the
multiple ways technologies can enter organizations; altering organizations and being altered
by them. But if digitization is seen as a question of implementation of a specific digital
technology, we may overlook the programmatic aspects of digitization as well as the specific
form this attains in a public sector context. Numerous IS case studies examine public sector
organizations, particularly the healthcare sector, but with a few notable exceptions
(e.g. Kraemer and King, 1986), little attention has been paid to this question.
Organization studies have to a large extent followed the approach in IS and tend also to
conduct case studies of particular digital technologies in organizations. It is clear that
organization studies and IS have overlapping interests, and many of the studies discussed
below are positioned in both traditions and, for instance, published in the interdisciplinary
journal Information and Organization (e.g. Boudreau et al., 2014; Sørensen and Pica, 2005;
Bloomfield and McLean, 2003). But organization theory can provide a theoretical framework
and analytical vocabularies that make it possible to address questions about digitization both
as a border phenomenon than implementation of digital technologies, as defined above, and as
an organizational change factor at an everyday level. As argued by Barley and Kunda (2001,
p. 76) this is because “[a]ll theories of organizing are at least implicitly linked to some image of
the concrete activities that they purport to describe and explain. In most instances, these
activities are what people call work.” Studying various aspects of work, we are able to see:
[…] that digital technologies are used in a variety of ways and have a variety of effects on the way
firms organize. They can automate or informate work (Zuboff, 1988), they can create or eliminate jobs
(Barley, 1988), they can deskill, enskill, or reskill work (Spenner, 1995; Diprete, 1988), and more often
than we think, they may occasion no change at all (Gallie, 1994). (Barley and Kunda, 2001, p. 79)

Although Barley and Kunda refer to digital technologies rather than digitization as defined
above, their point is valid to our purpose because they emphasize that work is a key concept
in organization studies, also in relation to technology. This is in line with Du Gay and
Vikkelsø (2017) who argue that formal organizing and its connection to “work itself”
originally constituted the core of organization theory as a discipline. In their view, this
 connection between concrete work and formal organizing is both the rasion d’etre and the Digitized
distinguishing feature of organizational theory. Following these lines of reasoning, it is public sector
relevant to turn to organization studies if we want to enhance our understanding of how organizations
work is transformed in digitized public sector organizations. Organizations studies provide
us with a rich vocabulary that makes it possible to study the interplay between
technologies, work and organization in a specific context—the public sector—that must
also be taken into account.

Public sector organizations as a specific context

Digitization is altering work practices in many types of organizations across the public/
private sector divide. Yet, the ways in which work is organized and performed in public
sector organizations differ significantly from other types of organizations in certain
respects. If we assume that digitization is a multifaceted phenomenon that is shaped by its
organizational context this calls for examinations of the public sector as a unique context for
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

digitization. First, digitization in the public sector is different from private sector digitization
because, as discussed above, it becomes part of a “holistic” (Ejersbo and Greve, 2017),
movement-like way of thinking public sector reforms and change, based on strong
programmatic ideals. It is not just a question of implementing new digital technologies, but
implies political ideas, ambitions and interventions aimed at fundamentally rethinking and
reshaping the organizations. Second, public sector organizations operate under different
conditions than private sector organizations. In Bejerot and Hasselbladh’s (2013, p. 1358)
terms, public sector organizations are “ ‘wired’ differently” compared to private sector
organizations because the former are “largely run according to laws and political decisions”
(Bejerot and Hasselbladh, 2013) and, in addition, often subjected to specific accounting
and accountability requirements. In that way, public sector organizations have considerably
less discretion to set their own criteria of success and to define their own end goals
(Arellano-Gault et al., 2013, p. 155). They operate under different “regime values” that,
according to Du Gay (2000, p. 7), are “mainly […] imposed by the political environment in
which public governmental work is conducted.”
To further explore how digitization is different in the public sector, we focus analytically
on three organizational aspects that, we argue, take specific shapes in the public sector:
formal bureaucratic structures; accountability; and professionals. The three aspects can be
treated as separate analytical categories, but should not be seen as internally exclusive.
Rather they overlap in practice and in empirical studies, just like they can easily become
entangled with other analytical categories, as we will see in our discussion of organizational
studies of digitization of public sector organizations below. Although the three aspects can
be constructed as analytically distinct, it can be argued that they are connected by a specific
ethos of office, which is historically tied to the public sector and its professionals (Weber,
1978; Du Gay, 2000).
While formal structures are a basic feature of most organizations, they have a particular
significance in the public sector because the strict procedural handling of affairs is a way to
secure equality and transparency in public administration (Du Gay, 2000). In that way,
formal structures are related to accountability, which also takes different forms in the public
than in the private sector because the public sector handles communally shared resources
and is accountable to politically set goals as part of the democratic process. According to
Lipsky (2010, p. 160), “[a]ccountability is the link between bureaucracy and democracy.”
This implies different conditions for professionals in the public sector because professionals
are dependent on political decisions and held accountable for these. The programmatic
dimension of digitization of the public sector makes it relevant to investigate how these
three dimensions of public sector organizations are changing due to a range of effects
arising from the powerful digitization agenda.
 JOCM While a conceptual framework encompassing these three aspects is not exhaustive, it does
lead our attention to a wide range of important work practices shaped by the particularity of
public sector organizations. For that reason, we have chosen to focus on these three categories
as a lens through which we analyze and discuss relevant literature in organization studies. As
mentioned previously, other research traditions have studied digitization of the public sector
from more technical or administrative perspectives, but organization studies have
traditionally empirically investigated the work practices that are shaped by and shaping
formal bureaucratic structures, accountabilities and professionals. A distinctly organizational
view on these aspects, thus, allows for a particular view on work practices and it makes it
possible to pose a particular set of questions as exemplified by Table I.
These questions provide a focus on important dimensions of work that can be examined
by using the vocabulary of organization theory. The following sections discuss how
research in organization studies has provided often-implicit insights about digitization in
relation to formal bureaucratic structures, accountability and professionals. We introduce
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

each of the three sections by fleshing out why and how the theme is important for our
understanding of the transformation of work in the digitized public organization.

Digitization and formal bureaucratic structures

Organization theory has traditionally revolved around formal aspects of organization and
viewed organizations as units purposively constructed to attain formulated goals with the
help of explicit authority structures and roles (Du Gay and Vikkelsø, 2017). Scholars in the
field have been concerned with how coordination, communication and division of work are
ensured through the design of formal organizational structures. Structuring or restructuring
an organization is a practical discipline, which is often an ongoing managerial concern
(Du Gay and Vikkelsø, 2017). As illustrated in Table I, organization studies alert us to the
activities of structuring and restructuring organizations to pursue their core tasks.
The formal bureaucratic structures in the public sector are interesting objects of study
because they are constructed to ensure not only efficiency, but also effectiveness and public
legitimacy. In organization studies, there has not been sustained interest in how increased
horizontal collaboration and data sharing afforded by digitization affect the formal
bureaucratic structures of public sector organizations. But a few articles touch upon the
relationship between digitization and formal bureaucratic structures. Some of the articles
show that even if bureaucracies change due to digitization, their basic structures are still
present in the daily organization of work in the public sector. For instance, in his study of
the British Library, Harris (2006, 2008) found that despite increased marketization, several
features of the “classic” bureaucratic organization remain untouched—for instance,
elements of hierarchical management. His studies point to the emergence of new hybrid
organizational forms as a result of IT innovation. Boisot (2006) arrived at a similar
conclusion about stability vs change in structures. He proposes that public bureaucracies
have proven to be very strong institutions, especially with regard to the diffusion of
knowledge in the public sector. The same is demonstrated by Sørensen and Pica (2005) in

Theme Structures Accountabilities Professionals

Empirical How managers redesign How managers and employees How employees redefine
focus on structures, create new tasks, handle new demands to professional relations and
situated new occupational categories, registration, information identities in interplay with
work new groups, new routines and management, delegation of new tasks and positions in
Table I. practices how employees respond to the work to technology, delegation the organization
Research themes restructuring of responsibility
 their study of how the police establishes rules for mobile phone use. In that process, they Digitized
transfer their procedural work structures into a digital work reality and formal bureaucratic public sector
structures are re-constructed from the bottom up. These studies indicate that formal organizations
bureaucratic structures prevail in digitized public organizations despite proposals that
digitization might be connected to “the end of bureaucracy” (Harris, 2006, 2008).
Pointing in another direction, Yeo and Marquardt (2015) argue that digitization blurs the
boundaries between organizations or even breaks down strict organizational boundaries as
we know them. In their case study of a public organization in Malaysia, they show that new
digital technologies introduced new flexible communication channels that led to a shift in
the organization “from defined, inflexible, and hierarchical structures to more spontaneous
and fluid role structures making coordination easier” (p. 19) and they quote one of their
respondents for saying that this change “literally chipped off the pyramid structure” in the
organization (Yeo and Marquardt, 2015). This meant that gaps between employees and
decision makers were reduced and new horizontal relations replaced the old vertical
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

structures. Other scholars of change management have pointed out that implementation of
“e-service” is partly challenged by the need to simultaneously change structures and
boundaries within the public sector (Hossan et al., 2013).
The studies discussed above point in different directions. While all contain useful
observations, they can also be seen as supporting our claim that we have a limited
understanding of the effects of digitization on public bureaucratic structures. From a
democratic perspective, changes in formal structures might raise issues regarding
transparency, legitimacy and accountability. We turn to these issues in the following section.

Digitization and new accountabilities

The notions of bureaucracy, bureaucratic ethos and accountability are closely related
(Du Gay, 2000) and it seems safe to assume that digitization not only affects formal
bureaucratic structures, but also leads to new forms of accountability in public sector
organizations. Public organizations are held accountable for their work with digitization and
subjected to new forms of control that affect the organization in different ways. Power (1999)
points out that today’s “audit society” is characterized by an increasing desire to check
performance and ensure value for money in the public sector. This implies that more control
mechanisms are installed at the organizational level, aimed at making performance visible
and measurable and, thereby, auditable. The organization is held accountable for its
performance in the dual sense of the term—responsible for organizational performance and
being able to formally account for that performance. Digitization is part of this ambition
both because it creates new digital audit trails and makes work visible in new ways and
because its effects need to be measured and assessed when it is part of major reforms.
This calls for investigations into how the digitization agenda changes control and
accountability in public organizations. It is relevant to ask how accountabilities are
redistributed if fundamental organizational procedures are digitized and if professional
judgment is partly replaced with standardized, digitized solutions.
Yet, only few articles on digitization in public sector organization mention accountability
and even fewer take this aspect into consideration in their analyses. Some studies mention
accountability issues in the healthcare sector. For instance, Bloomfield and McLean (2003)
examined how the introduction of a new information system in the British healthcare sector
affected the organization of mental health services. Their case study of a psychiatric
department at a large hospital showed that the information system resulted in an increased
focus on documentation. It was no longer the case that good practice simply had to be
followed. Instead, the hospital had to meticulously document that it was acting in
accordance with the standards of the system and patients were continuously called upon to
self-report. The study shows that when an organization becomes physically dispersed
 JOCM (because most patients are no longer in the hospital), it invents new ways of making the
absent present. The information system becomes important in this regard because it makes
both patients and health professionals “visible and accountable” in certain ways (Bloomfield
and McLean, 2003, p. 68). This is seen as “opening up to surveillance, to inspection and
audit” (Bloomfield and McLean, 2003, p. 69).
In a study of electronic patient record implementation in an English hospital, Petrakaki
et al. (2016) argue similarly that the new system enhanced visibility in the organization.
Previously invisible work practices and decision making became visible because new kinds
of information had to be stored electronically in the new system. The system established a
historical log, which made it possible for both peers and external parties to control
healthcare professionals in new ways. The increased demands for documentation led to new
kinds of accountability because different groups of healthcare professionals were held
accountable for compliance with clinical standards and operating procedures, and
compliance could be checked continuously (Petrakaki et al., 2016, p. 219). This new
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

horizontal visibility “afforded conformity to due clinical process from fear of making errors
or omissions visible to peers” (Petrakaki et al., 2016).
The case study by Yeo and Marquardt (2015) mentioned in the previous section shows
how data leak and misuse of information followed when the case organization increased
data storage and data accessibility. The authors interpret these examples as “a typical
scenario of how organizational leaders, in their eagerness to solve a particular IT problem,
lost sight of their accountability of data and critical information” (p. 520).
None of these studies are mainly focused on accountability and they do not discuss
theoretically how this particular aspect changes when the healthcare sector is digitized.
Nevertheless, they show empirically that accountability relations change in the digitized
empirical contexts described. The vast increase in the call for documentation of work
practices and decisions seems to externalize professional accountability. This is not only a
question of adhering to professional norms, but also of documenting that adherence in a
way that is consistent with the system. The establishment of an audit trail becomes
important. As shown across the studies, this implies that professionals spend an increasing
amount of time on documentation and record keeping. Notably, although all authors draw
on case studies from the public sector, they do not discuss how this specific context affects
their findings. For example, although they do not unfold it in their brief discussion of
accountability, Yeo and Marquardt’s (2015) study point to the issue of sensitive data
protection. While this is of course also relevant to private sector organizations, it has a
particular relevance in the public sector because the legitimacy of the public administration
is highly dependent on its ability to store and treat sensitive data in accordance with strict
legislation and high ethical standards.
If we assume that public sector accountability is fundamentally different from private
sector accountability, examinations of how digitization in the public sector specifically
affects public sector accountability seem important. As already indicated above, the issue of
changing accountabilities also raises the question of how public professionals react to
digitization, as they are made accountable in new ways in the new organizational contexts.
According to Strathern (2000, p. 1), accountability is how “the moral and the financial meet”
in organizations today. It is not only about formal procedures, but also has a strong
normative aspect related to the specific public sector values and virtues. Both aspects of
accountability could play an important part in reconstructing the public professional—the
issue we want to discuss in the next section.

Digitization and the reconstruction of the public professional

A broad stream in organization studies has produced knowledge about dynamics between
people in organizations by focusing on the development and maintenance of professions as
 well as the interactions between professionals (Abbott, 1988). These interactions can be seen Digitized
as central to the execution of work, and organization studies alert us to the hierarchies, public sector
struggles and collaboration between professionals. As the previous sections suggest, the organizations
digitization of the public sector changes many traditional tasks, demands and relations.
Some tasks have simply disappeared, while the character of others has changed. For
instance, modern casework sometimes amounts to helping citizens help themselves online,
and administrative planning has become a matter of correcting mistakes made in digital
planning tools. This change in the character of tasks might be accompanied by a change in
professional identity. However, what happens to professional identities in relation to the
digitization phenomenon remains largely unexplored, as does the effects on employees’
sense of meaning and work satisfaction. Public servants might, for example, experience a
sort of de-professionalization (Toren, 1975) when structures and accountability practices
change, or they may become detached from classical bureaucratic ethics and more attached
to professional ideals in line with engaged project managers or business leaders (Du Gay,
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

2009; Pors, 2015). It is, therefore, relevant to investigate reconfigurations of professional

identities and relations among employees in organizations heavily affected by digitization.
Organization studies do offer empirical accounts of changes in professional
relations and identities as a consequence of digitization, but, again, these studies do not
explicitly discuss their results in the light of the particularity of a public sector
organization. Still, they do offer observations that are highly relevant as a basis for
investigating and theorizing how public professionals are re-constructed in digitized
public organizations.
Some studies analyze how relations between public professionals and citizens have been
altered by digitization, and discuss the implications for professional practice. For example,
in her study of a municipality citizen service, Pors (2015) shows how the mode of
professionalism changed from being one of service to being one of support after digital
self-service was introduced. Much of the work of accessing or entering information was
handed over to citizens and the role of the employee becomes to guide or facilitate this.
In such situations, the employee has to deal with the physical move from face-to-face
encounters from behind the desk to “shoulder to shoulder” encounters in front of the same
computer. The citizen has access to systems and information, the relation becomes more
equal and there is less need for authoritative case-handling or specialized knowledge, and
more need for social skills (Pors, 2015).
The study of mental health services mentioned in the previous section (Bloomfield and
McLean, 2003) showed that the changes brought about by the “virtualization” of mental care
practices also have implications for professional identities and practices. When patients are
no longer inside a physical building, health professionals need to keep track of them through
an increasing amount of documentation in standardized formats. In other words,
professionals become managers of information (Bloomfield and McLean, 2003, p. 66).
A similar situation has arisen for librarians in book-free libraries (Boudreau et al., 2014).
When a library becomes virtual, it becomes more difficult for librarians to uphold the
relation they had with citizens when they were “custodians of the books.” When books were
physical, librarians were also visible as someone to consult. Boudreau et al. (2014) studied
how librarians felt a need to redefine their tasks and professional identities when all material
was digitized. Librarians found themselves operating in an environment in which
information search only happened on computers and they were no longer recognized as
relevant professionals to consult. They, therefore, began to advertise their presence and the
possibility of asking for help, but this resulted in a frustrating number of directional or
practical questions. As the librarians were not interested in becoming clerical workers, they
chose to approach citizens online and expose their professionalism there. In this way, the
study shows how a change in tasks entails ongoing efforts to redefine professionalism.
 JOCM In addition to the literature investigating changing relations between public
professionals and citizens, several studies are concerned with how digitization transforms
professional roles and relations between various types of professionals as a result of new
tasks and routines within public organizations. For instance, the study of electronic patient
records discussed earlier (Petrakaki et al., 2016) also showed that when electronic requests
and clinical information can travel across clinical boundaries, both professional work and
power relations are restructured. The conduct of healthcare professionals becomes more
standardized, professional autonomy is curtailed, and the introduction of new tasks means
that new roles are established. For instance, nurses experience an enlargement of their
professional role because they become responsible for embedding technology in their work,
monitoring data and ensuring proper patient care. At the same time, the established
hierarchical relation between doctors and nurses is reinforced because doctors refuse to
engage with the technology, which they view as a non-clinical practice. Interestingly, nurses
seem to maintain and enhance their professional identity by extending it to “patient data
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

custodians and curators” (Petrakaki et al., 2016, p. 220).

Similarly, a study of the introduction of robotics in a hospital pharmacy concluded that
some professional groups can acquire more authority and prestige if they are able to interact
with digital technology in smart ways (Barrett et al., 2012). This study exemplifies how
accounts of the introduction of digital technologies are often stories of struggles among
different professionals, some of whom view a new technology as promising while others
view it as disturbing (Constantinides and Barrett, 2006; Segrest et al., 1998). A study of the
introduction of an IT-system in the military showed that the implementation only reinforced
a very hierarchical organization and, on top of this, it led to a sense of deskilling and a
mounting dissatisfaction among employees (Tolsby, 2000).
A final example from the literature on digitization of public organizations refers to
changed practices and professional roles, but without mentioning a conflict dimension
(Lanzara, 2010). The study covers courtroom practices where video technology and an
online presence threw judges’ well-established professional practices into question. The
introduction of digital technologies into the courtroom created a new range of observable
facts, which judges needed to deal with in new ways. The judges’ struggles were not with
other professionals, but with maintaining their professional status in an altered
organizational setting.
Across organization studies that address altered professional relations and identities
as a consequence of digitization, a common interest revolves around what we might call
the “virtualization” of a range of practices. Conflict and struggles are often identified as
outcomes of collaborating on and around digital platforms. Aspects that seem central to
studies of public sector organizations are the move of professionals toward an information
management role and the effort needed to make sense of new professional roles, relations
and identities. However, as pointed out earlier, in the literature, this emphasis on
redefining professions is not linked to the particularities of the empirical setting—the
public sector organization.

Discussion
The digitization of the public sector should not be considered solely a technical project or a
project merely about improving efficiency, freeing up resources and modernizing service
delivery. Instead, digitization should be seen as a substantial reform driven by strong
programmatic ideas and ideals and an often-unquestioned digitization imperative. Our
discussion above has shown that the organization studies literature treats certain aspects of
digitization in the public sector without explicitly discussing or problematizing how public
sector organizations are different from other kinds of organizations and how these specific
conditions affect change caused by digitization. In organization studies of digital
 technology, the themes of formal bureaucratic structures, accountability and professions Digitized
are, in fact, touched upon, but they are not theorized as particular aspects of the public public sector
sector and the digitization agenda. We propose that while the three aspects can be treated as organizations
separate analytical categories, they overlap in practice and in empirical studies because they
are connected in practice and by a specific ethos of office, which is historically tied to the
public sector and its professionals (Weber, 1978). According to Du Gay (2008, p. 338), this
ethos is “a historically contingent and variable ‘life order’ constituting a distinctive ethical
milieu in its own right, one whose practices of formalistic impersonality gave rise to certain
substantive ethical goals.” This ethos is characterized by a commitment to the execution of
the administration’s purpose, which is redefined by digitization reforms.
Formal bureaucratic structures, accountability and professionals are embedded in this
particular ethos. The formal bureaucratic structures mirror certain values, such as merit,
hierarchy and expertise. The more horizontal structures and relations afforded by digital
technologies challenge the traditional ethos of office in the public sector. This ethos also
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

appears to be challenged by a shift in accountability, which seems to become more

externalized and reformulated due to an increasing demand for new forms of standardized
documentation. Finally, if we assume that professionals among public servants are tied to a
particular ethos that is intrinsically linked to certain practices, then professionals cannot be
left untouched by changes in these practices.

A research agenda
On this basis, we propose a research agenda on the transformation of work in digitized
public sector organizations. With this research agenda, we offer a distinctly organizational
approach to digitization in the public sector because organization studies provide a
vocabulary where work is at the center and organizational key aspects such as formal
bureaucratic structure, accountabilities and professions make it possible to ask new and
potentially productive questions to digitization. This agenda can fruitfully draw on and
contribute specifically to the research strand in organization studies, which draws
inspiration from science and technology studies (STS). This stream of literature studies and
theorizes how work, organization and technologies, including digital technologies, mutually
constitute each other (Kallinikos, 2006; Orlikowski, 2007; Petrakaki et al., 2016; Wajcman,
2015; Zammuto et al., 2007; Zuboff, 1988). An STS-inspired vocabulary is useful because it
emphasizes that the implementation of digital technologies does not necessarily lead to
specific outcomes. Instead outcomes depend on the organizational context, users and
technologies. It also directs attention to situated practices and encourages detailed empirical
studies of work at the everyday level. Our analysis suggests that such an approach may
address the gap in the current literature on public sector organizations and digitization.
An STS approach provides a particular understanding of key terms in the proposed
research agenda, such as digitization, technology, work and transformation of work. It
implies that digitization is not merely a technical issue and we propose that the definition of
digitization is expanded—as argued in our introduction—and further theorized. First, it can
be understood as a reform program that pursues the twinned precepts of economic
efficiency and good practice (Strathern, 2000), which are pushed by such institutions as the
EU, OECD and national governments. Second, digitization can be understood as the
practical implementation of diverse digital technologies and work procedures, even though
the results of such implementations may not fulfill the expectations formulated in
digitization strategies. This dual definition of digitization makes it possible to grasp the
simultaneously diverse and crosscutting character of values and practices connected to
public sector digitization (Strathern, 2000). Also building on STS insights, our
understanding of technology in organizational contexts is that technology, work and
organization mutually shape each other (Grint and Woolgar, 1997). This interplay has to be
 JOCM taken into consideration when analyzing how digitization changes public sector
organizations at the level of everyday work. Technology is not a stable, predictable
entity. It is shaped by social forces (e.g. the digitization agenda), technical design (e.g.
specific online platforms) and local users (e.g. public sector managers and employees) who
are, in turn, shaped by the technology. Work can be defined as the concrete activities that
people perform and are engaged in when they are employed in organizations (Barley and
Kunda, 2001). Therefore, studying the transformation of work is not a question of assessing
the difference from “before digitization” to the present, but one of investigating how public
sector employees deal with the current digitization imperative in their work practices.
These definitions are in line with the state-of-the-art literature on technology, work and
organization, which is oriented toward grasping the specificities of technology use in
particular contexts. As digitization of the public sector happens simultaneously across very
large institutions, rather than in individual companies, it is relevant to study the
transformation of work across the entire sector and pose ambitious questions about the
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

organizational consequences of its digitization.

Conclusion and implications for change management

The purpose of this paper was to create a basis for understanding how digitization changes
work in public sector organizations. We established that digitization is a substantial reform
aimed at restructuring the public sector and we argued that this phenomenon is still
primarily investigated as an implementation issue in single organizations or theorized as a
reform issue on a macro level. Based on the assumption that organization studies can
contribute to our understanding of the transformation of work, the article examined what
we can learn from organization studies of digital technologies and changes in public
organizations. Our analysis of the organizational studies literature has identified various
examples of how digital technologies change important aspects of public sector
organizations relating to formal bureaucratic structures, accountability and professionals.
The analysis allows us to conclude that no systematic account exists in organization studies
of changes due to digitization specific to the public sector. On that basis, we have proposed a
research agenda that allows us to produce systematic knowledge about how work practices
in the public sector change with digitization. The research agenda draws on organization
theory and STS because these perspectives allow for situated investigations of the interplay
between technology, organization and work. It encourages us to investigate how managers
redesign structures, create new tasks, new occupational categories, new groups and new
routines. It leads our attention to how managers and employees handle new demands to
registration, information management, delegation of work to technology and delegation of
responsibility. And it pushes us to inquire into how employees redefine professional
relations and identities in interplay with new tasks and positions in the organization.
The knowledge produced by current and future research in this area is directly
applicable for change management. To react productively on the digitization imperative,
public managers need to deepen their knowledge of the organizational dimension of
digitization. They can no longer think in terms of information technology and IT
departments, but must cultivate a broader approach. For instance, if digitization of public
sector organizations is not just a matter of implementing a range of technologies, but about
integrating organizational strategies and digital technologies, managers need more
knowledge about the development of appropriate new organizational forms, such as agile
organizations or project organizations. Also, managers need knowledge sharing about how
digitization can be approached. There is an overlooked potential in sharing experiences
across the sector, since public sector organizations are at the same time recipients of the
same demands and a diverse aggregation of institutions. Finally, managers of public
organizations need more knowledge about implementing digitization reforms in relation to
 other reforms. Digitization must be seen in relation to a constant reform pressure in various Digitized
political areas, because these reforms also entail changes that have implications for public sector
digitization projects. It falls outside the scope of this paper to develop more specific organizations
recommendations, but we think that future research, inspired by our proposed research
agenda on public sector digitization, could inform public administration managers and help
them qualify organizational change initiatives in a public sector context.

References
Abbott, A. (1988), The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Arellano-Gault, D., Demortain, D., Rouillard, C. and Thoenig, J. (2013), “Bringing public organization
and organizing back in”, Organization Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 145-167.
Barley, S. and Kunda, G. (2001), “Bringing work back in”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 76-95.
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W. and Yates, J. (2012), “Reconfiguring boundary relations: robotic
innovations in pharmacy work”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1448-1466.
Bejerot, E. and Hasselbladh, H. (2013), “Forms of intervention in public sector organizations: generic
traits in public sector reforms”, Organization Studies, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 1357-1380.
Bekkers, V. and Homburg, V. (2005), E-Government as an Information Ecology: Backgrounds and
Concepts, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
Bloomfield, B. and McLean, C. (2003), “Beyond the walls of the asylum: information and organization in
the provision of community mental health services”, Information and Organization, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 53-84.
Boisot, M. (2006), “Moving to the edge of chaos: bureaucracy, IT and the challenge of complexity”,
Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 239-248.
Boudreau, M.-C., Serrano, C. and Larson, K. (2014), “IT-driven identity work: creating a group identity
in a digital environment”, Information and Organization, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Buffat, A. (2015), “Street-level bureaucracy and E-government”, Public Management Review, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 149-161.
Constantinides, P. and Barrett, M. (2006), “Negotiating ICT development and use: the case of a
telemedicine system in the healthcare region of Crete”, Information and Organization, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 27-55.
Davis, C. and Hufnagel, E. (2007), “Through the eyes of experts: a socio-cognitive perspective on the
automation of fingerprint work”, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 681-703.
Du Gay, P. (2000), In Praise of Bureaucracy: Weber-Organization-Ethics, Sage, London.
Du Gay, P. (2008), “Without affection or enthusiasm: problems of involvement and attachment in
‘responsive’ public management”, Organization, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 335-353.
Du Gay, P. (2009), “In defence of mandarins: recovering the ‘core business’ of public management”,
Management & Organizational History, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 359-384.
Du Gay, P. and Vikkelsø, S. (2017), For Formal Organization: The Past in the Present and Future of
Organization Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2006), “New public management is dead—long
live digital-era governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 467-494.
Ejersbo, N. and Greve, C. (2017), “Digital era governance reform and accountability: the case of
Denmark”, in Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (Eds), The Routledge Handbook to Accountability
and Welfare State Reforms in Europe, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 267-279.
Ford, M. (2015), The Rise of the Robots. Technology and the Threat of Mass Unemployment, Oneworld
Publications, New York, NY.
 JOCM Galbraith, J.R. (1977), Organization Design, Addison-Wesley Pub, Mass.
Grint, K. and Woolgar, S. (1997), The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization,
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Harris, M. (2006), “Technology, innovation and post-bureaucracy: the case of the British Library”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Harris, M. (2008), “Digital technology and government in transition: the case of the British Library”,
Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 741-758.
Hossan, C., Dixon, C. and Brown, D. (2013), “Impact of group dynamics on eservice implementation: a
qualitative analysis of Australian public sector organisational change”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 853-873.
Hung, S., Chen, C.C. and Lee, W. (2009), “Moving hospitals toward e-learning adoption: an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 239-256.
Hussenot, A. (2008), “Between structuration and translation: an approach of ICT appropriation”,
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 335-347.

Introna, L., Hayes, N. and Petrakaki, D. (2009), “The working out of modernization in the public sector:
the case of an e-government initiative in Greece”, International Journal of Public Administration,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Jæger, B. and Löfgren, K. (2010), “The history of the future: changes in Danish e-government strategies
1994–2010”, Information Polity, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 253-269.
Kallinikos, J. (2006), The Consequences of Information: Institutional Implications of Technological
Change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Kraemer, K.L. and King, J.L. (1986), “Computing and public organizations”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 488-496.
Landsbergen, D. Jr and Wolken, G. Jr (2001), “Realizing the promise: government information systems
and the fourth generation of information technology”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 61
No. 2, pp. 206-220.
Lanzara, G.F. (2010), “Reshaping practice across media: material mediation, medium specificity and
practical knowledge in judicial work”, Organization Studies, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1369-1390.
Lips, M. (2012), “E-government is dead: long live public administration 2.0”, Information Polity, Vol. 17
Nos 3/4, pp. 239-250.
Lipsky, M. (2010), Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th annual ed.: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Service, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.
Maciejewski, M. (2017), “To do more, better, faster and more cheaply: using big data in public
administration”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 120-135.
Marhetts, H. (2009), “Public management change and e-government: the emergence of digital-era
governance”, in Chadwick, A. and Howard, P.N. (Eds), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics,
Routledge, pp. 114-127.
OECD (2009), Rethinking E-Government Services. User-centred Approaches, OECD, Paris.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2007), “Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1435-1448.
Perrow, C. (1967), “A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 194-208.
Petrakaki, D., Klecun, E. and Cornford, T. (2016), “Changes in healthcare professional work afforded by
technology: the introduction of a national electronic patient record in an English hospital”,
Organization, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 206-226.
Pick, D., Teo, S.T.T., Tummers, L. and Newton, C. (2015), “Advancing knowledge on organizational
change and public sector work”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 No. 4.
Pors, A.S. (2015), “Becoming digital—passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy”, Journal of
Organizational Ethnography, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 177-192.
 Power, M. (1999), The Audit Society, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Digitized
Segrest, S.L., Domke-Damonte, D.J., Miles, A.K. and Anthony, W.P. (1998), “Following the crowd: social public sector
influence and technology usage”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, organizations
pp. 425-445.
Sørensen, C. and Pica, D. (2005), “Tales from the police: rhythms of interaction with mobile
technologies”, Information and Organization, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 125-149.
Strathern, M. (2000), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics, and the Academy,
Psychology Press, London.
Susskind, R. and Susskind, D. (2015), The Future of the Professions: How Technology will Transform
the Work of Human Experts, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Taylor, F. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Dover Publications, New York, NY.
Tolsby, J. (2000), “Taylorism given a helping hand”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 482-492.
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 05:00 16 July 2018 (PT)

Toren, N. (1975), “Deprofessionalization and its sources a preliminary analysis”, Work and
Occupations, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 323-337.
Wajcman, J. (2015), Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wajcman, J. (2017), “Automation: is it really different this time?”, The British Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 119-127.
Watts, S. (2016), The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, Technology, and Privacy Issues, Nova
Science Publisher, New York, NY.
Weber, M. (1978), Economy and Society (2 Vols), University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Woodward, J. (1958), Management and Technology, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London.
Yeo, R.K. and Marquardt, M.J. (2015), “‘Think before you act’ organizing structures of action in
technology-induced change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 511-528.
Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A. and Faraj, S. (2007), “Information technology and the
changing fabric of organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 749-762.
Zuboff, S. (1988), In The Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books,
New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Ursula Plesner can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]