Maximizing Citizen Satisfaction
Maximizing Citizen Satisfaction
Enhancing the Value Chain of Public Services
In this week’s post, we're concluding my broad exploration of public service value chains with a deeper dive into the central component Heintzman & Marson (2005) named citizen service satisfaction. It’s a vital link in the chain sitting between Employee Satisfaction and Commitment and Trust and Confidence in Public Institutions—topics covered in previous entries.
If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend exploring the prior posts in this series for a more comprehensive understanding:
Today, we'll explore how citizen service satisfaction fits into the value chain. We'll examine the specific satisfaction drivers Heintzman & Marson (2005) identified, exploring their roles and significance in the public sector. From there, we'll elevate our perspective to 50,000 feet and start brainstorming methods to enhance these drivers as we evolve public sector services. As I was delving into the research, I realized each of these drivers could fuel many more articles. This time, we'll just graze the surface of each, but rest assured we'll dive deeper into these important areas in the future.
Let’s get started!
Public Sector Service Satisfaction: An Overview
Public sector service satisfaction is a multi-faceted concept, entrenched in the intricate interactions between government and citizens. This satisfaction is a barometer of public services' effectiveness and a catalyst for perpetual refinement.
Heintzman and Marson (2005) provided a comprehensive framework to understand this satisfaction through the public sector value chain. They propose that the value derived from public services is not just due to the services themselves but also the processes and interactions leading to their delivery. This includes all stages, from policy formulation and resource allocation to service delivery and feedback mechanisms.
Citizen or client service satisfaction's significance in public sector transformation is monumental. Osborne et al. (2013) suggest that a satisfied citizen is more likely to trust and engage with the public sector, fostering favourable outcomes for individuals and society alike.
Heintzman and Marson (2005) posit that citizen satisfaction primarily revolves around two factors.
Firstly, they show the interesting relationship between the satisfaction and commitment of public employees, and how citizens perceive government service quality. They suggest that increased citizen satisfaction can occur when public employees are content and devoted to their roles.
Secondly, they show a correlation between citizens' satisfaction with public services and their trust in government institutions. This link, however, isn't as straightforward. While one might intuitively think that better service would lead to increased trust in the institutions delivering these services, evidence suggests this isn't always the case. It's crucial to note that these factors don't hold equal weight. For instance, Van de Walle’s (2004) Canadian studies found a strong reciprocal connection between public employee satisfaction and citizen satisfaction. However, the correlation between service satisfaction and trust in government wasn't as evident.
As we unpack citizen satisfaction, it becomes clear that it's not just about delivering outstanding services. It's also about understanding and traversing the complex relationships between public employees, service quality, citizen satisfaction, and trust in government. The better we comprehend these relationships, the better we can augment citizen satisfaction and trust in public institutions.
Exploring Drivers of Service Satisfaction
Heintzman and Marson (2005) explicitly call out five key drivers that significantly influence the perception and experience of public services. These drivers - timeliness, competence, courtesy, fairness, and outcome - each play a unique role in shaping satisfaction. They represent the different facets of service delivery that citizens interact with and evaluate in their encounters with the public sector. By understanding these drivers, we can gain valuable insights into how to enhance service satisfaction and, in turn, foster a more effective and citizen-centric public sector.
Let's take a closer look at each of these drivers.
Timeliness
Timeliness, related to the “responsiveness” dimension defined by Parasuraman et al. (1988), is a critical factor in service satisfaction. It refers to the speed and efficiency with which services are delivered. In the public sector, timeliness can manifest in various ways, such as the speed of response to inquiries or the efficiency of service delivery processes. For instance, a citizen applying for a permit would likely be more satisfied if the application process is swift and the permit is granted promptly.
Competence/Knowledge
Competence, another key driver of satisfaction, pertains to the ability of the service provider to deliver services effectively and accurately. This concept, explored by Citizens First (1998), is particularly relevant in the public sector, where the competence of service providers can significantly impact the quality of services and, consequently, citizen satisfaction. For example, a competent public health officer can provide accurate and helpful information, leading to higher citizen satisfaction.
Courtesy
Courtesy, also explored by Citizens First (1998), refers to the politeness, respect, and friendliness of the service provider. In the public sector, courtesy can significantly enhance the service experience, leading to higher satisfaction. For instance, a courteous public servant who treats citizens with respect and kindness can create a positive service experience, fostering higher satisfaction levels.
Fairness
Fairness in the context of public sector service is about equitable treatment and impartiality. Basu et al. (2012) highlight the importance of fairness in healthcare services, where adherence to standards and patient outcomes are prioritized. For instance, a public service that ensures equal access to resources and opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their background, can be seen as fair, leading to higher satisfaction.
Outcome
Outcome, as discussed by Heintzman & Marson (2005) and Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012), is the result or effect of the service delivery. In the public sector, the outcome can significantly impact service satisfaction. For example, if a citizen applies for a permit and the permit is granted, the positive outcome can lead to higher satisfaction. Conversely, a negative outcome, such as the denial of a permit, can lead to dissatisfaction. Thus, strategies that aim to improve outcomes can enhance service satisfaction.
Improving the Drivers: Strategies and Techniques
Understanding the drivers of service satisfaction is just the first step. The real challenge lies in improving these drivers, in enhancing the quality of public service delivery. In this section, we’ll take a very quick look at research and other work that provide strategies and techniques that can be used to improve each of the five drivers of service satisfaction.
Approaches to Improve Timeliness
In the digital age, technology offers a plethora of opportunities to improve timeliness. Kaylor (2005) discusses the role of e-government in enhancing the speed and efficiency of public services. For instance, online platforms for permit applications can significantly reduce processing times, leading to higher citizen satisfaction. To better enable timeliness, public sector organizations can invest in digital infrastructure, streamline online processes, and ensure that digital services are user-friendly. Regular feedback from users can also help identify bottlenecks and areas for improvement.
Enhancing Competence/Knowledge
Enhancing competence within the public sector requires a multifaceted approach. Bovaird & Löffler (2009) and Goodman et al. (1998) suggest strategies such as training and development programs, performance management systems, and knowledge-sharing initiatives. These strategies can help improve the skills and knowledge of public servants, leading to more competent service delivery. To better enable competence, public sector organizations can prioritize continuous learning and development, provide clear performance expectations, and foster a culture of knowledge sharing and collaboration.
Fostering Courtesy in Public Service
Courtesy in public service can be fostered through various techniques. Hood (2010) suggests using customer service training programs that emphasize the importance of respect and kindness. To better enable courtesy, public sector organizations can incorporate courtesy into their service standards, provide regular training on courteous behaviour, and recognize and reward employees who demonstrate exceptional courtesy in their interactions with citizens.
Ensuring Fairness in Public Service Delivery
Promoting fairness in public services involves ensuring equitable access to services and resources. This can be achieved through policies and practices that prioritize inclusivity and equality. For instance, implementing non-discriminatory service policies and providing services tailored to the needs of diverse groups can help promote fairness. To better enable fairness, public sector organizations can regularly review their policies and practices for potential biases, engage with diverse communities to understand their needs, and strive to provide services that are accessible and inclusive.
Achieving Better Outcomes
Achieving better outcomes in public service delivery requires focusing on both the process and the result. Strategies suggested by Osborne et al. (2013) and Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh (2012) include collaborative governance, citizen engagement, and outcome-based performance management. These strategies can help ensure that public services are delivered effectively and lead to positive outcomes for citizens. Public sector organizations can engage citizens in decision-making processes to better enable positive outcomes, monitor and evaluate outcomes regularly, and adapt their strategies based on feedback and evaluation results.
Wrap up
Looking ahead, the transformation of the public sector is an ongoing journey. As Osborne et al. (2013) and Brown, Cueto, & Fee (2006) suggest, the future of public sector transformation lies in a continued focus on service satisfaction, leveraging technological advancements, and fostering global collaborations.
In this journey, every step towards improving service satisfaction is a step towards a more effective, efficient, and equitable public sector. As we continue to explore and innovate, we look forward to a future where public services are not just delivered but delivered with excellence.
References
Basu, S., Andrews, J., Kishore, S., Panjabi, R., & Stuckler, D. (2012). Comparative Performance of Private and Public Healthcare Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001244
Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2009). Quality management in public sector organizations. Public management and governance, 2.
Brown, T. M., Cueto, M., & Fee, E. (2006). The World Health Organization and the transition from “international” to “global” public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(1), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.050831
Citizen First. (1998). Erin Research Inc for Citizen Centred Service Network. Canadian Centre for Management Development. LINK
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., ... & Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior, 25(3), 258-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819802500303
Heintzman, R., & Marson, B. (2005). People, service and trust: is there a public sector service value chain? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(4), 549–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852305059599
Hood, C. (2010). The blame game: spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton University Press.
Kaylor, C. H. (2005). E-government. The next wave of e-government: The challenges of data architecture. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 31(2), 16-19. Link
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. LINK
Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891-913. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019352