A Conceptual Model for Individual Coping with Value Conflicts

Abstract

Conflicting values that are sometimes impossible to resolve are one of the costs of public governance for public values and public outcomes. To unravel one of the mechanisms enhancing or obstructing public values or public outcomes in public governance, this article presents the individual coping with value conflicts model. The model focuses on individually experienced value conflicts regarding public values realization (i.e., the principles of governance) and public value creation (i.e., public outcomes) necessitating coping strategies. The article discusses various aspects of the theoretical model. The various coping strategies and their likely results are connected to public values realization and public value creation. However, first, the article identifies the origins of the need to rely on coping strategies, such as value pluralism and plural expectations of individuals. Next, the paper hypothesizes that individual coping strategies are driven by the psychological traits of individuals and influenced by interactions. The article further explains that the individual’s role in adopting coping strategies manifests in specific situations or contexts. The paper concludes with implications for public value(s) theories, makes suggestions for applications of the model, and sets out avenues for empirical research to test and advance the model.

The Values of the Management of Value Conflict

“…Studies that adopt Steward’s extended set of management options show how these strategies can and are being used to create external support, to diminish tensions within the organization, and to prevent paralysis among officials facing value conflicts (e.g., De Graaf et al, 2016; Ford et al, 2019; Jaspers, 2021). Meijer and De Jong have expanded Thatcher and Rein’s set of strategies even further.…”

“…These include conflicts between efficiency versus honesty and empathy in the prison sector (Paanakker, 2019), strict adherence to rules versus quality of service in train stations and police stations (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000; Steenhuisen & Van Eeten, 2008), affordability of services for clients versus quality of life in care provision (Oldenhof et al, 2014), privacy versus functionality in the design of digital services (Meijer & De Jong, 2020), tactical gain versus damage and casualties in military interventions (O’Kelly & Dubnick, 2006), to name just a few examples. Research also explores explanations for this (growing) diversity of values and the conflicts experienced by practitioners (e.g., Jaspers, 2021; Røhnebæk & Breit, 2022). Many studies include the question of how these public officials deal with value conflicts and what the strategies they use when they encounter such conflicts in their work (e.g.…”

“…Their strategies (Cycling, Firewalling, Casuistry) have been applied to a variety of policy areas, but new strategies have also been identified. These include hybridization, incrementalism, bias, denial, and deliberation (Jaspers, 2021; Meijer & De Jong, 2020; Steenhuisen & Van Eeten, 2008; Stewart, 2006). However, some scholars have taken a remarkable turn in their use and elaboration of Thatcher and Rein’s suggestions.…”

“…They present strategies for dealing with conflicting values not only as strategies of practical rationality, but also as ways of achieving one’s particular goals. They see these strategies as well as effective tools for securing support, blocking opposition, or preventing employees from being paralyzed by the decision-making process (see, for example, Jaspers, 2021; Meijer & De Jong, 2020; Steenhuisen & Van Eeten, 2008; Stewart, 2006). In short, such strategies appear as effective realizations of particular organizational goals (i.e., instrumental rationality) and not (only) as vehicles for finding and realizing better (i.e., practical rational) answers to public value questions as Thatcher and Rein understand them.…”