Functional politicization – political activities and capacities taken on by bureaucrats within their administrative function – has received increased academic attention over recent years. Regardless, the factors and determinants behind this phenomenon remain a point of uncertainty and debate. Within this study, we explore whether increased political polarization and fragmentation in the Dutch political landscape from 2007 to 2019 and functional politicization are related. To do so, we analyze data from surveys conducted in 2007, 2013 and 2019 and semi-structured interviews conducted in 2019 to establish which skills – political-strategic insight, substantive expertise (Fachwissen), or procedural knowledge (Dienstwissen) – are perceived by senior civil servants to be the most prevalent in exercising their profession. The data depicts the prevalence of political astuteness in the profession and highlights three causal dimensions: institutional, organizational, and interpersonal dynamics. It however fails to highlight a cross-time evolution, which is hypothesized to be due to a ceiling effect of this competence having constantly been perceived as the most prevalent. The latter adds a theoretical dimension to the notion of functional politicisation, as it aligns with other academic findings that suggest senior civil servants are now subject to heightened pressures due to being increasingly monitored and in the (public) spotlight.

This short essay identifies key future trends for public managers and outlines seven leadership challenges for public managers.

In this paper we study the institutional impact of the Dutch senior executive service (Dutch: Algemene Bestuursdienst, hereafter: ABD) on the craft of senior civil servants in Dutch government. Our study rests upon a thorough evaluation conducted in 2020. For this study, we interviewed 51 (former) cabinet ministers, members of parliament, senior civil servants, HR experts and ‘outsiders’. We structure our paper in three parts. First, we discuss the founding principles and motives for the institutional renewal that became the ABD. Second, we discuss the ABD’s practice. Third, we signal and interpret the outcomes of the ABD so far. This results in five critical observations. We conclude the ABD has become an institutional fact. Nonetheless, the ABD could have done more to transcend the focus on individual appointments and development of collective craftmanship, and to visibly shape and protect such craftmanship.

In this paper, the athour responds to 't Hart's and Belabas' emphasis on a call for more impact, more specifically, more societal impact. First and foremost, it is important to define what societal impact means, and how it can be generated. In additon to increasing the effects of academic knowledge, it can also mean more links with societal issues, and/or more contributions to changing the societal order. This, in turn, also implies changing academic impact, namely impact on other academic disciplines. In addition, it is important to clarify 'impact pathways' when societal impact is 'made'. Impact can be visible and instantaneous, but it can also be hidden, and/or stretched in time. Public administration scholars should trave these different routes to impact, by going outside, observing grass roots processes, showcase intriguing experiences, and make subtle knowledge connections.

Employability is often framed as a win-win situation for both organizations and employees. It is therefore no surprise that governments’ management development policies usually heavily invest in the employability of public managers. Whether this approach has potential downsides for both parties has been overlooked so far. The aim of this article is to present a critical view on employability of public managers. We illustrate the added value as well as risks of employability investments by using recent Dutch data on senior civil servants. Our findings indicate that employability has benefits but that it can become ‘too much of a good thing’ leading to risks as organizational amnesia and loss of managerial credibility.

At the request of the General Administrative Service (ABD) of the Government in the Netherlands Mark Frequin developed a vision for public leadership. In his opinion it’s not about a paper-reality but about a movement to more leadership. For that reason he made a Compass for public leadership. If you want to set steps to more leadership it’s all about looking for direction. And despite what normally happens in the public sector, jumping to solutions, it’s therefore much more important to find out what are the dilemmas, the problems, the paradoxes, the puzzles…Mark is giving attention to some of them in this article: the need for more long-term-planning and at the same time short-term political promises; the importance of more knowledge in public on the one hand and the same time seeing more opinions in society and media; the information-paradox: not too much and not too little information; being in control and at the same time accepting uncertainty; and being a (civil) servant and also a (public) leader. The search for public leadership is understanding the difficulties. It’s therefore a search given the fact that there are not one-time answers.

In this article we reflect on the scientific, the administrative governmental and societal impact of Dutch public administration. We argue that this discipline has put itself strongly on the map in the last half century. Additionally, the discipline has, in line with the ethos of its founding fathers, developed itself closely in dialogue with administrative practices. This has led to many different forms of impact in the administrative-professional field. However, there is much to gain when it comes to societal impact, and in particular the visibility of public administration in the broader public debate about the many societal challenges that modern societies face.

Recently, the construction of large datacentres has led to intense societal debate in the Netherlands. Political decision making preceding the building of these centres is usually done at a decentralized governance level. However, at that level, it appears to be challenging to balance the relevant interest with integrity, and the living environment of citizens is easily overlooked. At the core of this debate lies a systemic challenge that comes with the changing role of the local government. Driven by privatization, globalization, digital transformation and citizen emancipation, the identity of governments transforms. Consequentially, governments are not only legislators and policy makers, but also – and increasingly – business partner, shareholder and client. Local politicians struggle with combining and switching between these roles. The case of datacentres is the embodiment of these challenges, and it takes a powerful, hybrid government to address these challenges in a meaningful manner and adopt a more active role for civilians in line with the new Dutch spatial planning law. Above all, it is necessary to focus on acting as a professional and stable partner. This is not only in the interest of citizens, but also in the interest of the related private organizations.

In this special issue, we set the scene: we explain what we do in this special issue, and why. All authors analyze the 'improvement' of public managers, of their work, behavior, craft, profession. This is paradoxical: professional public managers are seen as highly important, but it is highly unclear what it means to be and act as professional public managers. We sketch four perspectives on the professionalization of public managers. They will be elaborated in the various papers: a 1) bureaucratic, 2) political, 3) strategic human resource, and 4) societal perspective. They will have to be combined to get a fuller picture of 'effective' public managers.

At the beginning of the corona crisis, there was a real wave of solidarity actions, for example people helping each other in villages and neighbourhoods, and buying food from close by. At the same time, opinion articles appeared about the historical-social context in which the COVID-19 virus could have such a rapid impact on society. These two observations have led to this research into the potential of citizen collectives in times of crisis. First, it was shown that, in combating the pandemic, governments paid little or no attention to the possibilities of citizen collectives to reach citizens in villages, districts and neighbourhoods through direct, personal channels. In contrast, the analysis of 20 opinion articles from the period March-June 2020 shows that the value shifts that most authors consider desirable to address the big issues in society are a good fit with the values that citizen collectives represent. For three domains – care and housing, work and food – this is illustrated with existing practices and new needs. Their conclusion is that the government would do well to make a strong appeal to the organizing capacity of active citizens, their networks and community strength when tackling major social challenges related to climate, energy, care, food and housing.

When the corona virus was reported in the Netherlands in March 2020, it also had a major impact on public administration. At that time it was still completely unclear which consequences would be temporary and which would be permanent, but it was immediately clear that it presented unique study material. There was every reason to quickly start describing, analysing and interpreting the first consequences of the fight against corona for politics, administration and policy, with a focus on local authorities. That is why in April 2020, with the support of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the ‘Corona papers’ research programme was set up by the Thorbecke Chair (Geerten Boogaard), in which a number of renowned scientists took part. Platform31 (Rogier van der Wal) was also involved. It took care of the accompanying website and newsletters and organised the final conference. Five of these ‘Corona papers’ have been revised and updated for this special issue.

As soon as uncertainty rears its head, mistrust increases and people seek interpretation and clarity. Both reactions strongly appeal to the ability of public organisations to make contact precisely then, at the critical moments. That’s no mean feat. What makes establishing and perpetuating contact in a unique context such as the corona crisis so complex? That question is central to this contribution. The authors set up their consideration from the philosophy of appreciative communication. The complexity lies in several things, first of all, the necessary customisation. Management is communication and communication is people’s work and that makes it custom work. In a crisis, you cannot simply fall back on protocols, existing policies, etc. The situation requires constant reassessment, coordination and making choices. In addition, you have to make those choices in an ever-changing context that is characterised by factors such as the initial invisibility of the problem, the unprecedented scale, the uncertain course, the indivisibility of the government, and the unease with the government. In combination with a number of faltering communicative levers, various tensions arise that complicate the contact and thus the administrative task. The authors identify seven contact keys from the philosophy of appreciative communication that can be helpful in practice and conclude with a review of these ideas based on the communicative tasks identified by the Dutch Safety Board in its first evaluation. What takes place in a crisis is not an isolated communicative task that can be outsourced, but reveals a quality that is the guiding principle in everyone’s – managerial – actions.

A crisis brings existing vulnerabilities to the surface and clearly shows where the strong qualities of a society and its governance can be found. In the Netherlands, the corona pandemic has also exposed strengths and weaknesses according to that pattern. An important example of this is the region’s strong and complex position in our domestic governance. The author points out three lessons from the long post-war history of failed attempts to adjust the administrative organisation of our country. This leads to three proposals for embedding the region in the existing administrative organisation. The three steps would not be necessary if there were political support for a small adjustment to the administrative structure of the Netherlands, namely a reduction of the provincial scale. A step-by-step, cautious adjustment in the eyes of the author therefore gives more chance of success than a radical administrative reorganisation, which is doomed to fail in this country. For example, the cautious steps could be a prelude to a new and smaller provincial scale.

This article examines the rally round the flag in the Netherlands during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, i.e. the rise in trust in political authorities in response to the external threat. The authors use unique panel data to do this, the first of which took place in the days before the announcement of the first national lockdown (mid-March 2020), and the second shortly after the announcement of the reopening of schools (late April/early May 2020). This allows them to isolate the rally in time. Their research shows that the government in particular has gained confidence. Confidence in other political institutions rose to a lesser extent; confidence in the police and the judiciary did not increase. We can best understand the rise in confidence as a decline in cynicism: during the first wave, politicians were less often portrayed as incompetent, which proved to be a motivator for increasing confidence. Fear of contamination was an important motivation for increasing confidence. Under the influence of the external threat, people placed their hopes on political authorities. Both mechanisms may explain that confidence rose particularly sharply among voters of radical right parties, although radical right voters remained the least trusting voters.

The corona crisis has shaken up the tasks, roles and relationships in the Municipal Executive (B&W) in the Netherlands. The question is what this has meant for the role and for the position of aldermen: the relationship between aldermen themselves, their relationship with the mayor, the municipal council, the civil service and society. A digital survey was used to investigate whether and how the crisis measures have changed the role and the position of aldermen. In addition, questions were asked about policy changes as a result of the corona crisis. The survey was completed by 145 aldermen, bringing the response rate to 10%. The corona crisis had a major impact on the role and position of aldermen. Their contacts with civil servants have become more intensive across the board, their boards have become more collegial and their mayors have taken on a more guiding and coordinating role. Contacts with the municipal councils are less intensive as a result of the corona crisis, which does not apply to their own groups. Relations with companies and institutions have been strengthened; those with citizens have remained unchanged.