An Exploratory Study on How Civil Servants Resolve the Paradoxes of the "Iron Cage" of Bureaucracy in a "VUCA" World

Hoang Vinh Giang

doi:10.30589/pgr.v9i3.1087

Hoang Vinh Giang Faculty of Public Administration, Academy of Public Administration and Governance (APAG), Vietnam.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v9i3.1087

Abstract

This study explores how Vietnamese civil servants address the complex paradoxes created by the "iron cage" of bureaucracy, particularly within the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment of modern public administration. Using in-depth qualitative interviews with 30 public officials from diverse regions and roles, this study uncovered a nuanced spectrum of adaptive strategies, including compliance, accommodation, collectivization, inertia, and distortion. By integrating classical and contemporary bureaucracy theories with real-world accounts, this study highlights how traditional hierarchical cultures and rigid procedures simultaneously support stability and impede effective adaptation. Comparative analysis of global and regional public sector reforms reveals both the unique and shared dilemmas faced by Vietnamese officials. The findings have significant implications for policy reforms, organizational change, and future research on state capacity, accountability, and innovation in developing countries. This paper argues that successful bureaucratic adaptation in a VUCA world requires balancing institutional orders with responsible discretion and fostering a culture of learning, resilience, and ethical public services.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What VUCA really means to you? Har vard Business Review, 92(1/2), 27–42.

Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.

Bourdieu, P. (2005). Political, social science, and journalistic fields. In R. Benson and E. Neveu (eds.), Bourdieu and journalistic fields (pp. 29–47). Polity Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. A. (2006). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Ashgate Research Company for New Public Management. Ashgate Publishing.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. (3rd ed.). Sage.

DeHart-Da vis, L. (2007). Unbureaucratic personality traits. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903.

Diefenbach, T., & By, R. T. (2012). Bureaucracy and hierarchy: What else! Journal of Change Management, 12(1), 69–79.

Evans, T. (2015). Professionals and discretion in street-level bureaucracy. In P. Hupe, M. Hill, & A. Buffat (Eds.) Understanding street-level bureaucracy. (pp. 163–180). Policy Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why can emotional intelligence matter more than IQ? Bantam Books.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics to change organizations and the world. Harvard Business Press.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Johansen, B. (2017). The new leadership literacies: Thriving in the future of extreme disruption and distribution of ever ything. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kaufman, H. (1977). Red tape: its origins, uses, and abuse. Brookings' Institutional Press.

Kettl, D. F. (2016). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lipsky M. (2010). Street-level bureaucrac y: Dilemmas of individuals in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). Psychological capital: Developing a competitive human edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4): 101385.

Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560–568.

Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New Public Management, Governance, and Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.

Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary changes. California Management Review 38(4), 8–30.

Weber, M. (1947). Theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1922)

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.

Wong, C. (2012). Discretionary space of local Chinese officials in implementing central policies. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17(1), 1–22.