The Beyond Boundaries (WAG, 2006b) philosophy of extending beyond the current network, together with the communitarianism of the Big Society, necessitates the loosening of
organisational ties, increasing the complexity of the public service environment for its inhabitants. The more complex the task environment, the more likely the organisation is to be subject to competing demands, diverse expectations or pressures (Thompson, 1960).
The most common reaction to diverse demands is to find a way out, to offset the
dis-equilibrium by assessing a few acceptable and bland alternatives with the aim of ‘satisficing’
(Simon, 1957), often within a usual range of stereotypical responses. The depth and breadth of the active investigation of alternatives is limited by the preserved social order, and by past experiences and their effects, both for the individual and their immediate peers. The
inclusivity and homogeneity of those within the frame, together with the recruitment protocols for the group, serve to perpetuate stability and maintain the status quo; resulting in what are perceived as ‘intendedly rational’ decisions (March & Simon, 1958, p. 170); and reducing uncertainty for the individual (Druckman, 2006).
However, the increasingly pluralistic environment of public services will promote a porous, heterogeneous and multifaceted environment, greatly increasing the diversity in both individuals and organisations delivering public services. This environment will require the investigation of other frames, and with a lack of stereotypical responses available for the new and emerging demands, this context will lead to an increasingly complex role for the public servant, throughout the organisation, by necessitating heterophilous interactions (Brandsen & van Hout, 2006). The process of intellectual exchange with in- and out-group member alerts individuals to ‘aspects of their subject that they have otherwise not taken into account’ (Merton, 1972, p. 38). On the other hand, while getting to know out-group members may improve relations to that group and may aid understanding, it may also cause an
individual to question their own identity, values and group identification. This questioning can create cognitive conflict as the current psychological contract and self-image is re-examined (Pelled, et al., 1999).
Lin (2001) agrees, with his finding that heterophilous interactions demand effort, do not promote shared sentiment and are therefore ‘less likely to occur’ due to the differing interplay between psychological and sociological demands (p. 47). The pluralistic public services will, by definition, require this heterophilous interaction. Structural innovations seldom emerge out of a hierarchically-organised field, but instead, originate at the periphery, because these peripheral players demonstrate altered forms of interaction with looser ties (Rao, et al., 2000). These differing patterns of social interaction and the differing norms facilitate the development of innovative practices. But to link these networks; within teams, and intra- and inter-organisationally, requires bridges (Granovetter, 1973). Bridges represent ties between two social circles, as shown in Figure 2 below, without this interaction there would be a
restriction in the passing of knowledge and the maintenance of the homophilous state. Lin (2001) extends Granovetter’s theory by noting the implication that ‘these bridging individuals tend to be on the margin of their respective social circles, as evidenced by their ties to other social circles’ (p. 67). The marginalisation of these individuals’ results in them holding weak ties to more than one group; making them a conduit for the linking of social and intellectual capital.
Figure 2. The Value of Heterophilous Interaction in Accessing Bridges to Other Social Circles
Source: Compiled by the author, adapted from Granovetter (1973) and Lin (2001)
Employees that possess numerous reference groups are more likely to engage in positive deviant behaviours, due to their exposure to, and interaction with, a broader range of varying perspectives and viewpoints. The introduction of a wider range of views has been found to arrive at superior decisions; identifying potential pitfalls, and with a more thorough
investigation of these views, this leads to more positive outcomes (Cosier & Rose, 1977).
The importance, therefore, of these marginalised individuals, and the information flow that they represent, resulted in Granovetter’s (1973) recognition of the strength of weak ties. A more positive term for these marginalised individuals is ‘institutional entrepreneurs’, they are seen as critical in the process of the de-institutionalisation of existing values, beliefs and norms, ‘they spearhead collective attempts to infuse new beliefs … thus creating
discontinuities in the world of organisations’ (Rao, et al., 2000, p. 239), and the route to fresh modes of social interaction.
Yet, conversely, their marginalised status could result in them being classified as deviants within the group. Resulting in an uneasy state with individuals feeling adrift (Allport, 1962); a state which can produce disruption for both the individual and the group (Lin, 2001). This
reaction is likely to be especially strong in the collectivist, altruistic and sportsmanlike
environment of public services (Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999); where CV has traditionally been constrained by the role the employee occupies (Sewell, 1992), and where a reified hierarchy is viewed as a structural mechanism for containing CV behaviours (Brett & Rognes, 1986;
Festinger, 1954).
In sum, Wright and Pandey (2008) found the traditional public administration values of:
service, public interest, fairness and equity together with the ‘considerable empirical support…that public employees place a higher value on helping others’ would maintain the reciprocal collectivist public service values and behaviours, and thus promote altruistic OCB (p. 504). The managerialism of NPM, and the performance culture that accompanied the subsequent Third Way, caused a disruption in the public servants’ psychological contract with their individualistic notions (Vigoda-Gadot & Meiri, 2008). The current financial pressures, combined with the Big Society and its drive for civicness and acts of CV, therefore presents another potentially uncomfortable cognitive dispute for public service employees; an area which will be explored next.