Recognizing citizens in municipal management: an exploratory study based on a content analysis of municipal websites in the province of Quebec

Introduction

Multiple organizational science studies have shown the importance of recognition in management practices. However, municipal studies have yet to use the concept of recognition to assess the relationship between municipal managers and citizens. This article represents a first attempt to explore the value and usefulness of the concept of recognition for municipal management. First, we show how recognition is related to the notion of civic engagement, and why it clashes with some principles of public administration. Second, we present an analytical framework suitable for municipal studies, which we constructed from the recognition literature. Third, various municipal recognition practices are assessed through a content analysis of the websites of Quebec municipalities whose populations are greater than 20,000. Finally, we discuss the new research avenues that emerge from our findings.

Why study recognition in municipal management?

Recognition has been a dominant theme in political philosophy over the past few decades (Guegen and Malochet, 2012); it has also been taken up by the social sciences (Payet and Battegay, 2008). While there are therefore multiple theoretical approaches to the study of recognition, research in the field generally focuses on the socio-political processes that enable individuals and groups to forge their identity and feel as though they count. This quest for recognition, as Caillé and Cordoso de Oliviera (2007) refer to it, is seen to underlie the dynamics of societies.

Recognition: driving organizations’… and communities’ vitality?

Whether in management teaching (Kernodle and Noble, 2013) or in managerial practice (Alter, 2002), the concept of recognition is often adressed from the perspective of its absence or shortfalls. The ‘denial’ of recognition through unawareness, depreciation or invisibleness (Renault, 2004) has produced several ‘mental pathologies’ (Dejours, 2011). Conversely, authentic recognition practices have numerous positive effects on employees and their organizations. For instance, they help improve employee self-esteem, and foster greater trust and organizational performance (St-Onge et al., 2005).

Several things can be the subject of recognition in organizations. Brun and Dugas (2005) distinguish four of them: individuals, work practices, devotion to work, and results. Recognition is granted based on what the employees do, but also on how they complete their tasks and the ways in which they interact with others. Employee contributions that go beyond the call of duty have also been investigated in the literature on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), following from Organ (1988). Studying this behavior makes it possible to discern the more complete range of employee contributions to organizational life, as well as its positive (Spitzmuller and Van Dyne, 2013) and negative effects (Bolino et al., 2013).

The relationship between OCB and organizational commitment is complex (Paillé and Valeau, 2013). Vandenberghe (2005) defines this relationship as ‘a psychological state that characterizes the link between an individual and his or her organization [translation]’, which varies depending on the different dimensions of OCB and the shape of organizational commitment (Paillé, 2006). Leadership style (Vigoda-Galot and Beeri, 2011) and the perceived degree of organizational support (Duffy and Lilly, 2013) are two factors that have been found to influence OCB and organizational commitment (Fabi et al., 2009; Vandenberghe, 2005). Both factors can be related back to recognition.

Considering the current context of municipal management, these conclusions should open new research avenues for the discipline. Indeed, civic engagement has become a prevalent, even hegemonic (Moini, 2011), theme in the public administration discourse on the local (Moulder and O’Neil, 2009) as well as the international (OECD, 2009) stage. The public participation literature has also shown a strong interest in civic engagement; the increasing usage of this concept has been concomitant with the rise of a perception of a ‘democratic deficit’ (Fung, 2011). However, pessimistic outlooks on civic engagement based on poor levels of public participation become more nuanced when the various modes of social participation (Gaudet, 2011), and the new public platforms made available through the Internet (Gordon et al., 2013), are considered. Could a lack of knowledge regarding the multiple forms of civic engagement constitute an obstacle to their further development? Studies that have sought to identify factors that stimulate organizational commitment suggest that this might be the case. But the municipal management literature has remained silent on this subject.

The recognition of citizens: an unspoken paradox in municipal management

To be sure, the public administration literature does discuss recognition, but the focus has mostly been centered on employee recognition (Bourgault and Gusella, 2001; Fortier, 2013). Some authors have explored the related themes of OCB (Beeri, 2012; Shim and Rohrbaugh, 2013; Taylor, 2013) and organizational commitment (Roux and Dussault, 2007; Vandenberghe, 2005), but surprisingly, considering OCB studies’ interest in citizenship behaviors displayed by clients (Guo and Zhou, 2013), citizen recognition has largely been ignored. Yet, the main schools of thought in public management have taken a greater interest in citizens over the last five decades. For instance, New Public Administration, which emerged in the 1970s, insisted on the necessity of fostering citizen participation and improving their capacity to choose in the interest of social equity (Frederickson, 1976). New Public Management (NPM) – which achieved its momentum in the 1980s – argued for a greater responsiveness by public officials to the demands of citizens viewed as clients. However, in Reinventing Government – a beacon of the NPM literature – citizens are not only seen as clients, but also as members of a local community whose cohesion should be strengthened (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). New Public Governance, which rose to prominence in the 2000s (Osborne, 2010), re-established citizens’ prominent role in public administration. They are seen as more than beneficiaries whose expectations should be fulfilled; they represent key actors – either individually or in groups – in service delivery (Brandsen et al., 2012). Public managers are encouraged to improve their capacity to deliberate and consequently, promote the public interest (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000). Conversely, Bourgon (2007) places citizenship at the heart of his ‘new public administration’ theoretical framework. Studies regarding ‘administrative democracy’ also highlight the role of citizens as active protagonists – not only in the process of decision-making, but in administrative processes as well (Chevallier, 2011). A more recent trend regarding public administration 2.0, or government 2.0 (Chun et al., 2010; Gascó-Hernández, 2014), similarly makes citizens omnipresent actors in the public management discourse. They are viewed as an integral part of the process of public value creation, in the production of situation diagnoses, in the elaboration of solutions, in the development of web applications, and in the shaping of behavior.

This reconceptualization of citizens as partners (Vigoda-Gadot, 2002) represents in and of itself a mark of recognition, but it has yet to lead to a greater interest in recognition practices in municipal management. This paradox can be explained in two ways. First, recognition is part of a reciprocal relationship. Yet, notwithstanding the increased interactions fostered by public participation, public administration continues to engage in unilateral thinking and to see itself as above citizens despite claiming to be at their service. Two trends are illustrative of this vision. First, public managers’ trust toward citizens (which actually represents a condition of recognition) has hardly been studied (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2012; Yang, 2006). Conversely, citizens’ trust toward public managers has been the object of numerous studies (Van de Walle et al., 2008). Second, performance measurement generally neglects citizens’ and other groups’ contribution to the realization of public organizations’ objectives. It obliterates the intrinsic interactive nature of service provision (Osborne et al., 2013) and diminishes the importance of coproduction, which more recent works have sought to highlight (Alford, 2009; Fledderus et al., 2014; Gofen, 2013; Pestoff, 2014).

The second explanation for the paradox of recognition can be found in the notion itself. Indeed, recognition suggests that relationships are personalized and take into account individual differences. By contrast, administrative conduct is impersonal and rests on rules that aim toward impartiality and equity. This bureaucratic culture has been put under severe strain in the new communicative reality of social media, where the ‘culture of the self’ (Denouël, 2011) and ‘self-display’ practices (Proulx and Klein, 2012) are becoming more generalized, fed by the recognition expectations of small and large publics alike.

Thus, the literature is ripe for investigations of citizen recognition practices. Municipalities are multiplying their calls for more proactive citizen involvement in a number of areas (in particular, security, the environment, and sociability); management studies show that recognition positively influences employee commitment. Could we hypothesize that citizens’ commitment to community life would be greater and more stable if they were recognized and supported by their municipalities? A report by the OECD (2011) in fact argues that valuing citizens and service users, and being more open to their potential contribution, represent necessary conditions for improving coproduction. However, in order to test this hypothesis, we must first define and operationalize the multiple recognition practices that take place in the municipal realm.

The multiple forms of citizen recognition in municipal management

Studies on recognition in the field of organizational science have largely been informed by political philosophy, in particular, by the works of Honneth (1996) and Ricoeur (2004), which are often cited in the literature. Taking their analyses as a starting point for an investigation on municipal citizen recognition admittedly requires some justification. First, a community such as a municipality shares some of the same characteristics as organizations. Both are headed by a decision-making body, which controls certain aspects of the life of their respective members; and, more importantly, both rely on the contribution of these members to reach their objectives. This dependency on community members is central to our argument. However, communities and organizations differ in several other respects. For instance, in principle, municipal democracy involves a more bilateral decision-making process. Second, a municipal administrative body, like a private organization, seeks to produce goods and services; but unlike a private organization, it also aims to transform, to some degree or another, the behavior of citizens. It produces citizens. This fundamental difference aside, the concept of recognition provided by organizational science has applications for municipal management and the analysis of the relationship between citizens and their municipalities, as we showed in the first part of this article.

The study of recognition should revolve around three main questions: where is recognition given, by which mode is it given, and how does it take shape in practice? For Honneth (1996: 94), recognition materializes in ‘the separate spheres of the reproduction of society’ (family, civil society, and the state), as well as through different modes (personal attention, social esteem, cognitive consideration) and forms (love, friendship, rights, solidarity). The notion of ‘spheres’ may be too restrictive, however; it suggests that an exclusive form of recognition is contained within each sphere. On the other hand, the notion of ‘register’ used in music and borrowed by Lazzeri and Caillé (2004) to distinguish three large bases of recognition (love, competency, belonging) affords the possibility of seeing the relationship between the actors of each sphere or life space from a greater variety of angles. Some studies on organization recognition have shown the value of multi-angle analyses. For instance, Brillet et al. (2013: 14) distinguish different types of recognition: financially distributive, non-financially distributive, procedural and interactional. In light of this, recognition analyses in municipal management should center on three planes: first, on the quality of interpersonal relations between managers and citizens. These relations are bounded by the bureaucratic logic; in the name of equal treatment for all, they cannot lead to favoritism – but they also do not have to be mechanical or impersonal. Second, respect for citizens’ rights should be assessed. While from a socio-political perspective, these rights are seen as having been progressively extended (Isin and Turner, 2007), the managerial perspective is more concerned with the concrete conditions – which public managers can influence – that enable the exercise of these rights. Third, attention should be turned to the social valuation of citizens. Social valuation is understood as the public acknowledgement of citizens’ contribution to the community, which suggests that all coproduction phenomena are taken into account. Our first question regarding the location of recognition thus brings us to consider three elements: interpersonal relations, administrative support in exercising citizens’ rights, and the social visibility of the behavior of individuals acting as citizens.

Our second question regarding the modes of granting recognition is related to the different meanings associated with the term ‘recognition’. Depending on the author, these distinctions are conceptualized as modes, forms, or types of recognition. We choose to use the term ‘mode’ in this analysis, and reserve ‘form’ for the concrete shape that recognition takes. Drawing on the three periods of Ricoeur’s (2004) Parcours de la reconnaissance, El Akremi et al. (2009) outline three modes of recognition in the workplace: identification recognition, which requires locating the ‘individual existence’; value confirmation recognition, which involves respect for an individual’s skills; and gratitude recognition, which emphasizes the individual’s contribution to the organization through his or her actions and based on his or her personal characteristics.

This tripartite framework can be transposed to the study of municipal management. Identification recognition sees the individual from the perspective of his or her specificity as a person. However, the word ‘identification’ carries a connotation of control – especially in law enforcement activities. It is probably preferable to use the more neutral concept of ‘personalized attention’. To what extent do municipalities view citizens as unique persons when they enact policies, in their discourse, and in their day-to-day operations? The municipal citizen personality is complex; it is made up of diverse roles, affiliations, and personal traits. Citizens’ roles have been the subject of numerous nomenclatures (Divay, 2012a; Roberts, 2004; Villeneuve, 2005): they have been described as service-users, as ‘the governed’, as voters, as taxpayers, as coproducers … Which of these roles are given most recognition? Further, each citizen can cumulate several affiliations, which can be category based (age group, gender), elective (association membership) or geographic (neighborhood, municipality). Do these various affiliations structure some actions undertaken by municipalities? Value confirmation recognition reveals a systematic favorable bias toward individuals – specifically, with regard to their skills and rights. It implicitly underlies the empowerment literature, which promotes civic and community engagement in public affairs. If a municipality recognizes the value of its citizens, it will be more likely to take actions to further improve their civic competencies (Milner, 2004), to foster their commitment to their community, to facilitate the exercise of their various roles, and to gain their opinions and contribution. As for gratitude recognition, it represents more than a reward: it rests on a belief of reciprocal dependency. Do expressions of gratitude occur at the municipal level?

The third question relates to the need to operationalize these three modes of recognition. What concrete forms does recognition take? Research on recognition practices in organizations emphasizes their great diversity. Recognition can be given through formal routes (political, procedural, discursive) or more informal ones (attitudes, language in daily interactions). It can result in tangible rewards (nominations, bonuses, gifts) or remain intangible (consideration). Its authenticity is related to the combination of all these forms. Producing a complete diagnosis of municipal recognition practices would therefore require an ambitious research design, where a documentary analysis (of policies, procedures, decisions, discourses and any other forms of communication) would be complemented with behavioral observations and surveys of citizen and employee perceptions.

This study is limited to a documentary analysis. Specifically, we examined municipality websites to assess the presence of recognition practices. When we say ‘recognition practices’, we not only mean all the actions that explicitly signal recognition, but any municipal action or discourse that denotes one of the three modes of recognition we have outlined (personalized attention, value confirmation, and gratitude).

An overview of citizen recognition practices in municipal management through a content analysis of municipal websites

The websites under study

Choosing municipal websites as our main unit of analysis presents advantages and limits, both from an analytical and an empirical viewpoint. With respect to analytical advantages, this method allowed us to focus on publicly visible recognition practices, as municipal websites are accessible to everyone. Indeed, recognition practices necessarily have a public dimension; they represent, according to Honneth (2005: 17), ‘the expressive (thus publicly accessible) manifestation of attributing value to individuals’ intelligible characteristics [translation]’. However, the three modes of recognition are not equally visible on the websites we consulted. For instance, not all municipalities have access to the same resources to develop their website or contribute new web content; they also do not make the same editorial decisions. For this reason, we limited our analysis to 51 municipalities with a population greater than 20,000. Furthermore, in light of the diversity of search engines provided on each website, we conducted a more systematic analysis by using Google’s advance search function. To reduce the likelihood of redundant results, we also limited our search to a 365-day period.

The identification of recognition practices was done iteratively, through a content analysis (Mucchielli, 2006). In a first stage, the analytical framework we presented above suggested several keywords and observational elements (recognition initiatives undertaken by municipalities) for each of the three modes of recognition. Word occurrences were then identified with Google’s advance search function. By reading the pages on which the words appeared, we were able to draw out other keywords and observational elements that were indicative of recognition practices. A more complete list of recognition markers (Table 1) was then constructed and all the websites were reassessed for their presence. The first stage of the analysis was completed during the summer of 2012, and the second stage from fall 2013 to winter 2014. During a second stage, the minutes of proceedings of all municipal council meetings that took place in 2013, and which were available on the websites, were evaluated. In the case of Montreal, we also studied the council meeting minutes of its 19 boroughs, as they represent relatively autonomous administrations. Since municipal council meetings symbolize the public character of municipal life, any sign of recognition that could be detected on the municipal websites suggests an especially strong practice of recognition (even if it is sometimes the result of political strategizing).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Citizen recognition markers on municipal websites.

Modes of recognition	Concrete forms
Personalized attention	Personalized relation through subscription Interpersonal mediation services Sectorial affiliations as policy objects Nominal enumerations
Value confirmation	Breadth and quality of information Support in the exercise of the diverse citizen roles Use of participative processes Easily understood regulatory frameworks Direct or indirect financial aid Training Soliciting contributions Encouraging volunteerism Awareness campaigns Advertised contests Participation on committees
Gratitude	Gestures of thanks and congratulations Personal rewards (awards, medals, nominations to orders of merit) Celebrations Commemorations

New research avenues

The findings of this exploratory study open new research avenues in the area of recognition in municipal management and lead to a new perspective on the evaluation of citizen–municipality relations. Many issues must be investigated further: the repertoire of the concrete forms of recognition, the challenges and risks that they pose, their impact on citizen engagement. The municipal websites we consulted reveal numerous forms of recognition; this repertoire could be widened through observations of the day-to-day interactions between citizens and municipal actors. The practice of recognition also creates challenges specific to each of the three modes for elected officials and managers. Despite the standardization of problem treatment, personalized attention implies a human touch – an interactive experience that becomes a personal encounter (Bartels, 2013), which is achieved through, among other things, an adapted vocabulary (Agger, 2012). This mode of recognition is also constrained by the need to ensure that groups and individuals are treated equitably. Furthermore, it is a necessary condition for the realization of one of municipal governments’ main functions: coordinating the diverse lifestyles that make up their complex societies (Stoker, 2011). Value confirmation tests the ‘receptiveness of public officials toward public participation [translation]’ (Bherer, 2011) beyond official statements. This mode of recognition requires, among other things, a municipal communication strategy that is not limited to marketing, but is also concerned with presenting the problems, options and decisions in a pedagogical way so as to ensure that citizens understand the stakes. Gratitude recognition is easily expressed where citizens are strongly engaged; the challenge remains of finding ways to express gratitude toward the mass of ‘ordinary’ citizens whose behaviors also have an impact on municipal quality of life.

Recognition practices are not without risks – they can move away from their primary goal of valuing citizen involvement in community actions. Personalized attention can lead to prioritizing some individuals’ interests over the needs of the community; they can even take on the character of discriminatory profiling. Recognition practices can be ritualized half-heartedly; they can be manipulated to serve as rewards and as means to support political allegiances. Simultaneously taking into account the three modes of recognition could be an antidote for the possible excesses of one practice in particular. The sincerity of recognition practices surely conditions their effect, as organizational studies have shown.

The identification of the effect of recognition practices would constitute a significant contribution to the literature on the factors associated with civic engagement. Our exploratory study shows that it is possible to identify indicators for all three modes of recognition, and that the range of recognition forms varies from one municipality to the other. An analysis of the relationship between the configuration of the forms of recognition and the intensity of citizen engagement in their different roles (political associate, institutional practitioner, and local shareholder) is therefore conceivable from an empirical standpoint.

The study of recognition practices can also contribute to the advancement of knowledge on the relationship between citizens and the municipal institution and, thus, improve performance measurement. As municipalities offer services on their territory and provide a normative framework, they can be seen as what Honneth, cited in Marcelo (2013), calls an ‘institution of recognition’, or in other words, an institution that delivers recognition. Evaluating the quality of a municipality’s relationship with its citizens can therefore not be limited to assessing the level of satisfaction of service users; indicators related to citizens’ capacity to fulfill their roles and contribute to ‘local collective performance’ (Divay, 2012b) must also be included, as suggested by the literature on coproduction. As ‘institutions of recognition’, municipalities not only have a duty to report on what their employees do, but also on how their citizens contribute to attaining collective objectives. Numerous policies insist on the notion of transparency – but being more transparent is not sufficient to regain citizens’ trust (Welsh, 2012). Recognition practices are declarations of trust toward citizens; could they not also serve to increase citizens’ confidence in their municipal institution?