Professional services such as educational services, are increasingly managed and optimized in order to improve performances. Performances of students, teachers and school (boards) are measured and evaluated. Increasingly, rules and systems focus on outputs and control. Consequently, the ‘freedom’ of professionals such as teachers is reduced, or is perceived and felt to be reduced. There have been growing debates on the problematic effects of performance pressures. Often, public professionals are seen as ‘defenseless victims’ of systems and pressures – they are ‘professionals under pressure’. In this paper, we introduce a more positive way of understanding professionals and professional action in changing contexts. We see professionals such as teachers as ‘active agents’ who can develop and regain control over their own situation. Professionals can deliver quality, in spite of bureaucratic burdens and managerial intrusions. We call this ability professional capability: ‘the ability to proactively deal with work-related expectations, tasks and burdens in dynamic stakeholder environments’. This paper combines research on public administration, organizational sociology and occupational psychology, to generate a more productive understanding of proactive coping of professionals in public domains. We define and operationalize professional capacity, we explore sources and effects, and we develop hypotheses for further research.

Risks taken by some organizations may have considerable impact on society. In this contribution the assessment and management of risk are perceived to take place in a multi-actor setting. Within an organization operators, risk managers, and top managers interact about risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. Public regulators and inspectorates increasingly focus on risk management systems instead of the operational activities or organizational outputs. Are organizations systematically assessing their risks? This contribution identifies two contrasting perspectives on risk assessment and risk mitigation in literature: risk management and risk governance. An empirical study in three sectors reveals evidence of both perspectives in practice. Companies adopt hybrid approaches, which are essential for the quality of risk assessment and mitigation. Indeed, adopting just one perspective seems dangerous. We conclude that public regulators and inspectorates might provide incentives to focus on just one perspective and suggest two heuristics for public inspectorates that respect hybrid approaches of risk assessment and mitigation.

De Handreiking Gezonde Gemeente, een landelijk instrument voor verbetering van integraal gemeentelijk gezondheidsbeleid, wordt volgens de Gezondheidsinspectie onvoldoende gebruikt. Deze studie onderzoekt mogelijkheden voor verbeterde implementatie van de handreiking in de GGD-organisatie.
Diverse GGD-disciplines, gemeenteambtenaren en externe respondenten zijn geïnterviewd over ervaringen en opvattingen aangaande de handreiking.
Naast een positieve inhoudelijke waardering is er een sterke roep om concrete vertaling naar het ‘hoe’ van het gebruik. De directe voordelen van het instrument voor betrokken professionals en managers binnen en buiten de GGD-en zijn onvoldoende geëxploreerd.
Als GGD-en het als taak zien om het gebruik van de handreiking door professionals, gemeenten en partners te stimuleren, dan zullen zij eerst de voordelen ervan moeten expliciteren. Bereidheid bij GGD-managers om professionals te sturen en faciliteren op het gebruik van instrumenten lijkt hiervoor een belangrijke randvoorwaarde.