Conflict, ambivalence, and the contested purpose of public organizations

Human Relations · 2006 · Volume 59 · Issue 2

Abstract

This article argues that public organizations are inherently more complex than private ones. Their complexity derives from two sources. The public sphere is the site for the continuous contestation of public purposes and this means that questions regarding values and policies saturate all public organizations, particularly at the point of delivery. Second, because government partly acts as the receptacle for the alienated subjectivity of citizens, public organizations have to contain much of what is disowned by the society in which they are situated. It follows that the fate of the public official, sometimes referred to as the ‘street-level bureaucrat’, is to have to contain the unresolved (and often partially suppressed) value conflicts and moral ambivalence of society. Such a perspective has implications for all of those who, in their different roles, seek to bring about change or development in public organizations. Psychoanalytic approaches to organizational consultation have not adequately understood the contested nature of public organizations and some key aspects of this approach, such as the concept of the organization's primary task, need to be reconsidered.

Keywords

ambivalence, primary task, social anxieties, value pluralism

Enable JavaScript for citation tools and additional paper interactions.