Hester Paanakker

a slightly broader perspective on divergence by including data on how respondents perceive a shared value vision in general (and not only with respect to good frontline work). Once more, this provided overwhelming evidence of the type and nature of the value divergence that arose from the empirical results in parts one and two. This can be summarized in three points: more than 90% of all respondents perceive the value divergence to be large, grave, and problematic; the value divergence mainly manifests itself in terms of value prioritization and enactment in practice; and there is little to no divergence on value understanding. The nature of public value divergence is characterized as two mostly clashing realities: instrumental values that support the organization (effectiveness, as a focus on quantifiable targets, and efficiency, as severe employee and budget cuts), being pursued at the expense of intrinsic values that serve prison inmates (humanity, security, reintegration, and task effectiveness). Respondents from all levels perceive these values in a highly similar way (i.e. strong convergence on value understanding). The value divergence is most visible in the values that different levels prioritize and enact in practice (i.e. most strong in value prioritization and enactment). This is in line with previous results and is subscribed to by virtually all respondents (54 out of 55). It should be noted however that, unlike the results of part one and two, here just under 50% of respondents (spread out over different levels) also perceive value divergence in value identification. In their eyes, different levels do not only act out different values, but also genuinely believe that different values matter to public service delivery. Despite the different perceptions of how far and deep the divergence really stretches, the result is the same. In effect, value divergence represents a clash between the lifeworld of prison officers who seek to realize intrinsic values of public service delivery, and the system world of managers who the higher the level the more strongly they are perceived to prioritize instrumental managerial values that run counter to that. This settles the question of whether the value divergence experienced is a matter of perception only: at the expense of genuine attention to and room for the values of frontline craftsmanship, many actors at management levels are sucked into the managerial logic of measurable outputs, quantifiable targets, and lean management. They often practice different values, or practice them differently, from the ones they preach. Especially for organizational managers (prison directors and middle managers), this is often a matter of regret, suggesting that role differences 166 Chapter 7