Hester Paanakker

133 CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC VALUES IN THE FRONTLINE: THE EFFECT OF VALUE DIVERGENCE ON PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY IN A CASE STUDY OF THE DUTCH PRISON SECTOR Abstract A growing body of literature addresses the complexity and diversity of the nature of public values in public service delivery at the frontline, including how street-level officials deal with conflicting values in their work. We know less about how value conflicts between different public sector levels of policy, organization and implementation affect delivery of services. Using an extensive case study in the Dutch prison sector ( N =55), this article finds that value divergence between management and frontline workers juxtaposes the numerical focus of instrumental values (effectiveness and efficiency) with the public service focus of intrinsic values (humanity, task effectiveness, security, and reintegration). Value divergence is shown to increase problems with implementation of intrinsic values, leading to sub- optimal value realization in public service delivery. Surprisingly, value divergence does not necessarily cause street-level workers to experience moral dilemmas. Street-level workers were found to use coping strategies of cognitive distancing (indifference) to ignore their superior’s values, or, from a deep-seated sense of loyalty and adaptive capacity, bureaucratic flexibility to circumvent the most undesirable effects of value divergence. Based on our findings we discuss the implications and the need for further exploration of value divergence in public sector organizations and offer propositions for future research. 6.1 Introduction Recognition of the complexity and diversity of the nature of public values in public service delivery at the frontline is as ancient as the discipline of Public Administration itself. The conviction that practicing administration is not a value neutral activity (Ringeling, 2017; Waldo, 1948) has become practical wisdom, and a rich and ever growing body of literature has examined how public professionals experience and deal with often conflicting values in their work (De Graaf et al., 2016; Hupe et al., 2016; Lipsky, 1980; Oldenhof et al., 2014; Steenhuisen & van Eeten, 2008; Stewart, 2006; Tummers et al., 2015). Such studies provide useful insights 133