Managing crises as if no one is watching? Governance dilemmas from a public perspective

Lenz, Alexa Article — Published Version Managing crises as if no one is watching? Governance dilemmas from a public perspective Public Administration Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Lenz, Alexa (2024) : Managing crises as if no one is watching? Governance dilemmas from a public perspective, Public Administration, ISSN 1467-9299, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK, Vol. 102, Iss. 4, pp. 1397-1417, https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12980 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/313733 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINAL ARTICLE Managing crises as if no one is watching? Governance dilemmas from a public perspective Alexa Lenz 1,2 1 Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany 2 Department of Political & Social Sciences, Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany Correspondence Alexa Lenz, Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Science, LMU Munich, Oettingenstraße 67, 80538 München, Germany. Email: [email protected]nchen.de Funding information Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Grant/Award Number: 01UG1826BX Abstract In the midst of ongoing crises, understanding how citizens perceive administrative crisis management is more relevant than ever. Combining organizational literature with insights from legitimacy research, this article scrutinizes how the public evaluates governance decisions concerning prominent crisis management dilemmas: flexibility versus stability, inclusion versus exclusion, and equity-based versus needsbased resource distribution. The paper argues that flexible, inclusive, and equity-based governance decisions are generally perceived as more legitimate. However, governance decisions are also associated with adverse effects that can mitigate any initially positive effect on legitimacy. The argument is tested in a large-scale randomized survey experiment in the context of a migration crisis, where governance decisions were manipulated. The findings support the expectations for inclusive crisis management and equity-based resource distribution, which are perceived as the most legitimate governance alternatives. Internal adaptations of administrative practices toward more flexible and adaptive solutions, however, are perceived less legitimate than stable governmental action. 1|INTRODUCTION Crisis situations pose extreme governance challenges for governments and public administrations. To respond to the urgency and uncertainty of crises, governments and public administrations must move away from routine actions Received: 28 March 2023 Revised: 5 December 2023 Accepted: 16 December 2023 DOI: 10.1111/padm.12980 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2024 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Public Admin. 2024;102:1397–1417. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm 1397 and instead find alternative coping strategies to deal with the situation and fulfill their system-maintaining role. Therefore, administrations mix or replace established bureaucratic routines with new procedures to become adaptive, flexible, and inclusive (Ansell & Boin, 2019; Eckhard et al., 2021; Jung et al., 2018; Moon, 2020). However, this process of deviating from routine behavior is particularly susceptible to the emergence of governance dilemmas, namely situations in which each competing governance alternative is associated with clear advantages and disadvantages, where an inherent contradiction between two alternatives exists and organizations need to prioritize one over the other (Carlson et al., 2017; Olsen et al., 2007; Seo & Creed, 2002; Smith & Lewis, 2011). A recent and prominent example are the mask procurement scandals that occurred throughout the Covid-19 Pandemic, when many countries loosened procurement regulations to provide room for maneuvering but simultaneously paved the way for abuse and personal enrichment (Fütterer-Akili, 2022). The question of how to successfully decide on government alternatives over others, is therefore a central component of organizational and crisis research. Conversely, it is worth noting that entrenched bureaucratic routines, while potentially constraining internal crisis management capabilities, serve as vital pillars of political legitimacy by ensuring legality, transparency, and accountability (Stark, 2010). As such, public administrations play a supporting role for democracy, fostering political and institutional trust and legitimacy (Bogumil & Kuhlmann, 2015; Deephouse et al., 2017; Herian et al., 2012). Considering the relevance of bureaucratic procedures for legitimacy, it is crucial to understand how governance decisions, and hence the government process, affect public perceptions of legitimacy. So far, the existing research on the topic mostly focuses on crisis management performance and outcomes, and hence output legitimacy (Christensen et al., 2011;Mizrahietal.,2021b). In contrast, this article aims at understanding the effects of the governance process, and in particular specific governance alternatives, on public legitimacy. The central research question of this article thus asks what effect the administration's decisions on resolving governance dilemmas have on the public legitimacy of crisis management. To investigate to which extent the various manifestations of crisis management impact the degree of crisis management legitimacy, the paper looks at three prominent governance dilemmas in crisis management with opposing alternative governance options: (1) flexibility versus stability in the organizational reaction (Webb & Chevreau, 2006), (2) inclusion versus exclusion regarding external actors (Moynihan, 2009;Whittakeretal.,2015), and (3) equality versus needs-based resource redistribution among different recipients (Henstra, 2010;Sutter&Smith,2017). Public administrations are inevitably exposed to the tensions between competing alternatives when responding to crises. Depending on how administrations choose to solve existing governance dilemmas, various manifestations of crisis management can emerge. Prior research gives some indication that certain governance alternatives are assessed more positively than others (Lakoma, 2024). For example, the results of Lenz (2022) show that citizens who volunteered during the 2015/16 migration crisis recorded an increase in trust in the administration if they perceived the administration as a flexible and inclusive actor. Participation is also a driver of legitimacy and is positively associated with citizen satisfaction (e.g., Laegreid & Rykkja, 2015; Wu & Jung, 2016). The effects of governance alternatives on public legitimacy are tested in a preregistered survey-experiment conducted among 2.630 participants of a probability population in Germany. A set of vignettes that describe hypothetical crisis management scenarios are used to manipulate the governance alternatives. The different manipulations encompass descriptions of either the routine approach, bureaucratic adaptation, or a rampant scenario characterized by adverse manifestations of adaptation. The findings show that citizens perceive crisis management as more legitimate when administrations react stable instead of flexible and inclusive instead of exclusive. The differences between needs-based and equality-based resource redistribution were small but lean toward the equality-based redistribution. Particularly, the finding that flexible crisis management, while increasing internal effectiveness, decreases perceived legitimacy levels, emphasizes the need to put public perceptions more into focus in crisis management and public administration theory. The paper makes several contributions: First, it contributes to existent literature by combining crisis management and organizational research with approaches from legitimacy research. Moreover, by featuring crisis management dilemmas, the paper adds a perspective on the crisis management process rather than its outcome. It aims at understanding how specific ways of dealing with dilemmas relate to public evaluations. Second, the paper contributes experimental evidence and original data on how the public evaluates government responses to crises. 1398 LENZ Finally, emphasizing the legitimacy of crisis management holds essential insights for crisis management practitioners: It can encourage crisis managers to engage not only with an organizational perspective on crisis management success but also consider the public legitimacy of the process. This way, the findings hold implications for dealing with crisis management dilemmas by emphasizing legitimacy considerations. The article is structured as follows: The next section defines crisis management legitimacy and theorizes on the relationship between legitimacy perceptions and crisis management dilemmas. Next, the case of the German migration crisis 2015/2016 is introduced and the underlying data and design of the survey experiment are laid out. The presentation of the results of the analysis is followed by a discussion of the limitations of the study and concluding remarks. 2|THE EXTERNAL LEGITIMACY OF CRISIS MANAGEMENT Governance legitimacy is a well-explored phenomenon in political and organizational science. Legitimacy is commonly defined as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate”(Suchman, 1995, p. 574). This concept hinges on the perceptions, sentiments, and visibility of various government and administrative behaviors. It encompasses not just what the government does but also how citizens expect it to behave and how they assess its actions (Christensen et al., 2016; Scharpf, 1999; V. Schmidt, 2013; Suchman, 1995). In essence, legitimacy embodies the relationship between a government and its citizens, including their assessments of administrative or governance processes. These assessments cover factors such as responsiveness, inclusiveness, transparency, fairness, accountability, and impartiality (Bovens, 2007; Herian et al., 2012). Within the context of legitimacy research, literature differentiates between input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Input legitimacy pertains to politics and the quality of political representation and responsiveness. Output legitimacy relates to the effectiveness, decisions, and policies resulting from the political process. Meanwhile, throughput legitimacy relates to the governance process as such and focuses on the degree of accountability and transparency of actors and their practices, as well as their openness to civil society groups (Easton, 1967; Scharpf, 1999; V. Schmidt, 2013; V. Schmidt & Wood, 2019). Additionally, in organizational institutionalism, there is the notion of responding to challenges of legitimacy (Deephouse et al., 2017). When faced with inconsistent criteria, organizations grapple with managing their legitimacy. To either gain or maintain legitimacy, organizations can extend their existing legitimacy to encompass new activities. However, in some cases, they may need to engage in renegotiation, decoupling, or adaption to new situations and uncertainties (Deephouse et al., 2017; Smith & Besharov, 2019). It is, however, crucial to note that different sources of legitimacy may have conflicting criteria at times. Public administrations, in particular, face difficulties in this type of organizational adaptation. These entities are primarily designed to function within established routines, prioritizing the maintenance of legality, transparency, and accountability, and thereby upholding essential components of process legitimacy (Peters, 2001;Weber,2002). This undermines the complex interplay between organizations, their broader sociocultural milieu, and the unique challenges to legitimacy posed by crises (Stark, 2010,2014). Thus far, our understanding of the relationship between crisis governance and public perceptions of legitimacy remains somewhat limited. Only few studies have investigated citizens' perceptions of government performance and effectiveness in this context (Christensen et al., 2011; Mizrahi et al., 2021b). Their findings underscore the importance of immediate results, like readiness and preparedness, as well as traits such as responsiveness and transparency, in shaping how citizens perceive crisis management overall. Other studies suggest that certain aspects of crisis management, like the distribution of help or blame attribution, can affect electoral support and outcomes (e.g., Bechtel & Hainmueller, 2011; Malhotra & Kuo, 2008). Mazepus and van Leeuwen (2019) explored the relationship between crisis management and legitimacy in the context of natural disasters. Their research showed that equitable resource allocation and fair procedural practices play a significant role in influencing citizen perceptions and preferences. These findings provide important indications of how citizens evaluate the legitimacy of government actions during crisis management. Considering that the process itself seems to be as important as the outcomes in LENZ 1399 garnering public support for administrative actions (Van Ryzin, 2011; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2016), it is important to further scrutinize the determinants of public legitimacy during the crisis management process. By investigating how organizational dilemmas are evaluated from the perspective of public legitimacy, this article aims at further addressing this research gap. 3|CRISIS GOVERNANCE AND DILEMMAS Crisis management research primarily focuses on organizational, technical, or managerial perspectives, as well as procedural features and the use of resources. Within crisis research, the central questions revolve around structures, routines, coordination mechanisms, and the overall effectiveness of crisis management strategies (Ansell et al., 2010; Nohrstedt et al., 2018). However, there is no ideal operating mode for crisis management due to governance dilemmas and trade-offs that evolve under the uncertainty of crises (Moynihan, 2009; Rosenthal et al., 2001; A. Schmidt, 2019; Webb & Chevreau, 2006). Governance dilemmas, because of their paradoxical nature, cannot be readily resolved through clever organization and good management alone (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Rivera & Knox, 2023; A. Schmidt, 2019). Instead, these dilemmas entail situations characterized by a challenging choice among options, each carrying both advantages and disadvantages, and lacking an ideal or fully satisfying solution. Consequently, decision-making in crisis contexts necessitates consideration of trade-offs, where decision-makers consciously opt for certain benefits while reluctantly sacrificing others (Carlson et al., 2017; Olsen et al., 2007; Seo & Creed, 2002; Smith & Lewis, 2011)—a nuanced process made more complex by the pressures of crisis-induced uncertainty and urgency. This dynamic is particularly salient in transboundary crises, where a multiplicity of actors, sectors, institutions, and divergent opinions, give rise to governance dilemmas. Moreover, within highly politicized contexts, such as those surrounding issues like migration or recent pandemics, the prominence of governance dilemmas potentially increases (Carlson et al., 2017; Christensen et al., 2016; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Mazepus & van Leeuwen, 2019; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The three dilemmas discussed in this article are selected considering their omnipresence in crisis management research 1 but also because of their connection to legitimacy, as the governance alternatives they encompass have a direct bearing on the legitimacy of the crisis management process. First, the internal flexibility versus stability dilemma addresses the question of transparency and legality relevant for throughput legitimacy (Comfort, 2007; Deverell, 2010; Webb & Chevreau, 2006). Second, the external inclusion versus exclusion dilemma speaks to the aspect of openness and inclusion in the governance process (Iusmen & Boswell, 2017; McLennan et al., 2021; Moynihan, 2009; Whittaker et al., 2015); and finally, fairness is addressed by the resource dilemma, that is concerned with the resource reallocation based on equity or need between recipients (Rosenthal et al., 2001; Sutter & Smith, 2017). All three dilemmas are central to internal crisis management performance. They have been studied extensively in organization theory and public administration research, but not from a legitimacy perspective. Considering this context, it is reasonable to expect that the governance choices made by crisis managers in addressing these dilemmas will lead to different effects on the perceived degree of public legitimacy. When crisis management leans toward one alternative or another, the negative aspects of the alternative may not immediately surface or be seen as equally relevant. Prior research offers some insights, indicating that certain governance alternatives tend to receive more favorable assessments than others: Flexibility and inclusion have been found to be positively associated with citizen trust (e.g., Lenz, 2022; Mizrahi et al., 2021a; Wu & Jung, 2016). Similar observations can be made for the resource dilemma, where prior findings highlight the relevance of fair distribution (e.g., Mazepus & van Leeuwen, 2019). However, it is important to note that these courses of action can also have negative implications, particularly when they exhibit rampant traits. Rampant flexibility or rampant inclusion refers to actions where the adverse manifestations of adaptation outweigh the positive effects on legitimacy compared to their associated alternatives. Considering the risk of rampant manifestations, prioritizing alternatives could result in fewer adverse effects on legitimacy after all. 1400 LENZ 3.1 |Internal dilemma: Flexibility versus stability During crisis management, governments and administrative organizations face an internal organizational dilemma between stability (following long-established laws, legal standards, and procedures) on the one hand and reacting more flexibly to new and unforeseen crises on the other hand (Comfort, 2007; Deverell, 2010; Lenz & Eckhard, 2023; Webb & Chevreau, 2006). Flexibility challenges the basic organizational logic of public administrations, which is based on accountability, legality, and transparency (Stark, 2014). Therefore, the question arises as to whether organizations adhere to their routines and remain relatively stable or whether they respond flexibly to the crisis. On the one hand, the stability is targeted at transparency and traceability of bureaucratic processes. Governmental actors must be perceived as stable actors, who respond with integrity, and without bias to enhance their legitimacy (V. Schmidt & Wood, 2019). Hence, administrative structures and bureaucracy are designed to guarantee those norms through routines and rules. Stability and structure lower the possibility of abuse and misconduct, they provide transparency, accountability, and last but not least, they reduce uncertainty (Bogumil & Kuhlmann, 2015; Stark, 2014). Deviating from routine operating procedures compromises these aspects, causing a potential threat to how legitimate the crisis management process is publicly perceived. On the other hand, rules can constrain outcomes within the organizational goals or public interest, particularly during crisis situations—which are characterized by uncertainties and a heightened sense of urgency. Instead, pragmatic solutions, flexibility, and creativity are necessary to uphold organizational performance, efficiency, or stakeholder protection (Ansell & Boin, 2019). Crisis management literature has so far emphasized the importance of flexibility as a facilitator of effective crisis governance, as it enables creative coping strategies and the decentralization of decision structures, among others (Deverell, 2010; Eckhard et al., 2021; Lenz & Eckhard, 2023). This positive effect of flexibility should not only matter from an organizational perspective but also a perspective of public legitimacy. As mentioned above, meeting public expectations is significant for legitimate governance. Flexible public administrations increase the ability to act and react to a crisis as well as the speed of the crisis response (Webb & Chevreau, 2006). This advantage in efficiency then directly relates to the citizen's expectations of their government to take control of the crisis (Christensen et al., 2019). Prior research findings suggest increases in citizens' trust levels if the administration was perceived as flexible and fast in crisis management (Lenz, 2022;Mizrahietal.,2021a). Additionally, if the public observes how administrations react flexibly to crises instead of conforming to the negative stereotype of overly bureaucratic and indolent administrations, this adaptation can produce positive effects (e.g., Hvidman & Andersen, 2016; Willems, 2020). Nevertheless, and despite the generally positive impact of flexibility, it is essential to consider its potential adverse effects, particularly at the expense of administrative accountability (Bovens & Schillemans, 2011; Stark, 2014). If flexibility adopts rampant characteristics, it can lead to the misuse of the newly gained leeway and the abuse of discretionary powers rules. In such scenarios, flexibility might still serve organizational goals aimed at enhancing adaptable and agile responses to crises, but it additionally may result in adverse outcomes such as favoritism, overspending, personal enrichment, and corruption. Consequently, while flexibility is initially expected to have a more positive effect on the legitimacy of crisis management compared to stable administrative action, rampant flexibility is expected to ultimately mitigate or even undermine legitimacy. Hypothesis H1a. Compared to stability, flexibility in crisis management increases the perceived public legitimacy of the crisis management process. Hypothesis H1b. When flexibility takes rampant traits, the legitimacy of the crisis management process decreases compared to stability. LENZ 1401 3.2 |External dilemma: Inclusion versus exclusion The second dilemma crisis managers are confronted with is between exclusion and inclusion in the context of participatory processes (Harris et al., 2017; McLennan et al., 2021; Moynihan, 2009). This dilemma addresses organizational adaptations of public administrations at the external dimension, as it concerns the inclusion of civic engagement and participation in relief activities, which are omnipresent during disasters and crises. Hence, it pertains to the question of whether organizational boundaries become permeable, or if organizational boundaries remain rigid, thereby favoring exclusionary practices in the organization (Drabek & McEntire, 2003; Eckhard et al., 2021; Twigg & Mosel, 2017; Whittaker et al., 2015). On the one hand, the inclusion of citizen volunteers plays an essential role in crisis management organizations. The mobilization and utilization of citizen volunteers in crisis management is a popular notion in research and among practitioners alike (Barsky et al., 2007; Kapucu, 2006; Whittaker et al., 2015). Effective cross-sector collaboration holds potential for public sector-citizen interaction in general and crisis management in particular (Kapucu, 2006; Martin & Nolte, 2020). Administrations that display good-quality networks usually perform better in crisis management (Eckhard et al., 2021), and inclusion is also a successful way to mobilize additional surge capacity (Whittaker et al., 2015). However, inclusion does not only matter from an organizational performance perspective; civil society involvement is also regarded as an expression of community resilience and a popular alternative to top-down solutions. Research on institutional trust and value literature emphasizes the positive effects of citizen participation on trust and legitimacy and addresses the openness and inclusiveness of the crisis governance process (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000; Moore, 1995). Providing opportunities for individuals and civil society organizations to become involved in the crisis governance process is thus expected to increase the throughput legitimacy of the crisis management process (Herian et al., 2012; Johansson et al., 2018; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2016). One the other hand, while inclusion is a proven means of increasing public legitimacy and addressing the openness and inclusiveness of the crisis governance process, it is essential to acknowledge that participatory approaches come with adverse effects (Herian et al., 2012; Iusmen & Boswell, 2017). The involvement of a growing number of stakeholders can lead to inefficiencies and a reduction in accountability. Furthermore, a lack of understanding of interconnections and a holistic overview can further decrease effectiveness (Albris & Lauta, 2021; Bovens & Schillemans, 2011). These problems become even more pronounced in the context of crisis. Crisis situations are high-risk and high-insecurity environments involving a variety of actors with varying resources, skill levels, and access to information or communication channels, making cross-sector collaboration particularly challenging (Twigg & Mosel, 2017; Whittaker et al., 2015). First, in contrast to exclusion, inclusion can result in reduced efficiency and slower decision-making, potentially slowing down crisis responses (Iusmen & Boswell, 2017; Moynihan, 2009; Stark, 2014). Second, the inclusion of volunteers in the crisis response can lead to a dilution of responsibilities and accountability (Barsky et al., 2007; Drabek & McEntire, 2003; Harris et al., 2017; A. Schmidt, 2019). Additionally, multi-actor crisis management networks can pose challenges regarding liabilities. External actors often lack authority within the formal authorizing environment of the emergency management sector; they are often not bound by contractual or statutory obligation but rather act voluntarily. Meanwhile, any mistakes or wrong decisions can potentially jeopardize the safety and well-being of communities or first responders (Albris & Lauta, 2021; McLennan et al., 2021). Therefore, successfully integrating volunteers into crisis management can be challenging, and volunteers are often perceived as obstacles to efficient disaster response. Consequently, despite the predominantly positive effects of inclusion and openness on the degree of public perceptions of legitimacy, adverse aspects of inclusion can potentially outweigh its benefits compared to their associated alternatives. Rampant inclusion can thus mitigate the positive effects of inclusivity due to a lack of accountability and organizational control resulting from increased coordination and networking expenses, an increased number of involved actors, and increased response complexity (Van Slyke & Roch, 2004). This is exemplified when liabilities evolve into minor scandals or authorities use external stakeholders as scapegoats to shift blame on case of any mishaps (Albris & Lauta, 2021). 1402 LENZ Hypothesis H2a. Compared to exclusive behavior, including civil society actors in crisis management increases the perceived public legitimacy of the crisis management process. Hypothesis H2b. When inclusion takes rampant traits, the legitimacy of the crisis management process decreases compared to exclusion. 3.3 |Resource dilemma: Equality versus needs-based distribution The third dilemma addresses the resource dilemma that public administrations encounter in crisis management. A crisis response involves the delivery of help to individuals but also administering help across societal groups (Henstra, 2010; Rivera & Knox, 2022; Sutter & Smith, 2017). Yet, crisis management is usually accompanied by a scarcity of resources and the question of adequate distribution. The resource dilemma pertains to the question of distributive justice, wherein administrations must decide between distributing resources based on equity or on the basis of needs (Anaya-Arenas et al., 2018). Hence, authorities must decide how the resources will be distributed, whether funds from some policy areas are to be reallocated and redirected to crisis relief, and which social groups will benefit. During a crisis, some groups might be more affected, more deprived of resources, and more in need of help than others. Administrations face a dilemma involving the choice between safeguarding the most vulnerable and providing assistance where it is urgently required, versus addressing the broader community-wide needs with a focus on ensuring equity (Gadson, 2020). The resource dilemma differs from the two above in that it describes two competing alternatives but does not present a rampant category. Instead, the resource dilemma is characterized by a different pitfall for crisis managers: Authorities must weigh the effect of resource distribution on the efficiency of the crisis response and on fairness simultaneously (Gadson, 2020; Rivera & Knox, 2022). Needs-based distribution is characterized by its efficiency in swiftly reallocating resources to address the most urgent concerns. However, it may be perceived as less equitable, as only the most affected sub-group reaps the benefits. At the same time, including equity into the equation is difficult, as during crises a piori knowledge of what constitutes a fair distribution is often unknown since the exact consequences of the redistribution and the actual resource requirements cannot yet be estimated (Sutter & Smith, 2017). Hence, resource allocation considerations are highly unpredictable, making it challenging to identify the associated benefits and drawbacks. In this context, prior research by Mazepus and van Leeuwen (2019) discovered that redistribution favoring the collective interest over individual interests enhances legitimacy in crisis situations. Additional studies on perceptions of fairness in resource allocation underscore the relevance of social psychological factors, such as interpersonal trust and group identity, in managing a shortage (van Vugt & Samuelson, 1999). In contested crises, where polarization around the topic, opposing arenas, and opinions are dominant in the public debate, it becomes almost impossible for the public administration to determine what a fair resource distribution is (Rosenthal et al., 2001). The Covid-19 pandemic, for example, showed that while all parts of the population were affected by the crisis, different groups have received help faster and less bureaucratically than others. During the 2015/16 migration crisis in Europe, discussions were even more polarized, as some social groups felt financially disadvantaged compared to the newly arriving refugees (Innes, 2010; Koch et al., 2020). Previous findings show that threat perceptions, institutional trust, and political ideology are important individual-level predictors for support in national help for refugees. At the same time, perceptions of the deservingness of refugees might interfere with fairness perceptions regarding resource allocations (Koos & Seibel, 2019). Hypothesis H3. Compared to needs-based resource distribution, equity-based distribution increases the public legitimacy of the crisis management process. LENZ 1403 4|DATA AND METHODS 4.1 |Case selection: The 2015/16 migration crisis in Germany as guideline The 2015/16 migration crisis in Europe is exemplary for such a transboundary crisis. It was boundary spanning and involved a pluralism of public sector services, requiring cooperation within and between organizations from the public and nongovernmental sectors. In Germany alone, the number of refugee-seeking people has grown exponentially between 2014 and 2016, reaching its peak in 2015 with over 1 million newly registered persons. From 2014 to 2016, the number of asylum seekers grew from 77.651 to 745.545 per year. In contrast, from 2011 to 2013, only around 260.000 new registrations were listed (BAMF, 2017). Especially the September 2015 decision to allow refugees marooned in Hungary to cross German borders lead to an abrupt increase in people that had to be cared for. The situation was particularly challenging for administrations at the local level in Germany, where a large part of the crisis management competence is located. While the administrative system of asylum and migration policy in Germany is fragmented among all three federal levels, the local level districts—district-free cities and counties—are mainly in charge of all aspects regarding emergency response: they manage the accommodation, supply and support for the refugees as well as the complex administrative procedures lying behind that. Furthermore, they oversee medical and social support for asylum seekers. As such, they can be considered key actors in managing the German refugee crisis (Bogumil et al., 2016; Meyer, 2016). However, the local administration in most areas faced tremendous difficulties reacting to the massive influx of refugees; in many areas, the administration lost control of the situation. Apart from different degrees of affectedness and exposure to the influx of refugees, the local administration also differed in their capacity to react to the situation. While in some regions, crisis management structures could be applied relatively flexible, and civic engagement could be integrated into the administrative response, in other regions, the administration struggled to adapt quickly and was characterized by inertia and breakdown (Bogumil et al., 2016; Eckhard et al., 2021). This local-level variation makes an excellent case to study legitimacy perceptions regarding crisis management decisions, as typical crisis management dilemmas manifested quite clearly during 2015/16 and therefore propose realistic scenarios for the experimental design. For example, there are several examples of semilegal action and decision-making during the refugee crisis 2015/16, such as housing and fire prevention regulation or tendering processes. While pragmatism and flexibility were necessary to respond to the urgency of the crisis, in some cases, adverse flexibility has provoked negative consequences, especially for public perception. In such situations, the trade-off might have been too big to justify a positive performance assessment. For example, the neglection of tendering procedures can thus lead to shorter processing periods on the one hand while resulting in excessive spending or favoritism on the other hand (IfD, 2016, Kirmaier & Zimmerly, 2015). Similar observations have been reported for trade-offs regarding the inclusion of civil-society actors: On the one hand, the promotion, networking, and coordination of volunteers with full-time bureaucrats is costly and requires coordination committees, field offices, and staff bodies and waters down accountability (Hamann et al., 2016). On the other hand, voluntary engagement was important for local resilience and also the administrative ability to act in light of overburdening (Hamann et al., 2016). The question of fairness and resource distribution is also particularly interesting in the case of the 2015/16 migration crisis, as the individuals affected by the crisis were a vulnerable group that was not part of the host society. Distributional fairness is, therefore, relevant among refugees as well as between refugees and the host population. Although this distribution conflict is not new, it may have been exacerbated by the crisis. A survey in the United Kingdom, for example, showed as early as 2004 that 71% of voters perceived that refugees were prioritized regarding public service provision compared to citizens (Innes, 2010; Koch et al., 2020). At the same time, support and solidarity with refugees were very pronounced in the public discourses in Europe, and the majority of European citizens supported national help for refugees (Koos & Seibel, 2019). 1404 LENZ particularly with regards to distributional justice, but potentially also with regards to the internal and external dilemma. For instance, it is reasonable to expect that adverse effects might be more tolerable when individuals feel a stronger sense of identification with the affected population. Furthermore, the study was conducted among a German population sample, and there is a possibility of varying effects among citizens in different countries that cannot be controlled for. Therefore, the findings of this study can only be preliminary insights toward a better understanding of the interplay between crisis management alternatives and perceived throughput legitimacy. Testing the effects of crisis management governance on throughput legitimacy for various crises and across different countries would be an important avenue for future research. Additionally, the findings are limited to the treatment conditions in experiments. In this article, flexibility, inclusion, and fairness were operationalized as dilemmas with specific characteristics. The results could change given other operationalizations. Replicating the experiment with an adapted operationalization of the treatments could also be a fruitful option for future research. Finally, experimental research allows for the inclusion of a limited number of variables, and randomization only accounts for specific confounding factors. However, due to the specific vignette survey design, some validity due to the cross-sector features was achieved, and several additional variables could be included (Mutz, 2011). Considering the relatively small size of variance in legitimacy that is explained by the organizational crisis governance in the analysis, other factors on the individual level as well as at the level of crisis management outcomes that could not be included in this study should be further investigated. 7|CONCLUSION This research aims to investigate how the crisis management process relates to public legitimacy. It combines literature on organization theory, crisis management research and legitimacy literature and centers around three central organizational and crisis management dilemmas—flexibility versus stability in internal reactions,inclusion versus exclusion of external actors, and equity versus needs-based resource distribution—which are then theoretically linked to their effects on public legitimacy. By focusing on these three managerial dilemmas, the paper emphasizes process legitimacy, directly asking how management decisions or behavior affect how the public perceives crisis management. Empirically, the paper draws on a vignette experiment with survey data from 2.630 German respondents. The experimental design allows presenting the respondents with hypothetical crisis scenarios that were managed in different ways. While these hypothetical settings are constructed and come with limitations, the method nevertheless enables studying public perceptions during crises. Because of the highly vulnerable context of crisis, surveying those affected in actual disasters is technically and ethically difficult. The findings contribute to the current state of crisis management literature by corroborating the relevance of the governance process for crisis management evaluations and perceived public legitimacy (Mazepus & van Leeuwen, 2019; Rivera & Knox, 2022). The findings highlight the relevance of transparency and legality, inclusion, and fairness of crisis management, while at the same time conceptualizing adverse effects of specific managerial options on process legitimacy. As such, the findings directly speak to the bigger conundrum between internal governance effectiveness and external governance legitimacy in crisis management (Boin & Rhinard, 2022; Christensen et al., 2016;Mizrahi et al., 2021a) and add a public perspective on the primarily technical and organizational field of studies. More broadly speaking, the findings resonate with others who discuss the legitimacy of bureaucratic discretion and associated legitimacy dilemmas between effectiveness through rule stretching (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000;Keiser,1999;Rivera& Knox, 2023) versus violations of norms and subjectivity to individual judgments (Bell et al., 2021). The findings of this research also have tentative practical implications for the way how administrations should think about the legitimacy of their crisis response. Administrations are dependent on public legitimacy, as it affects government capacity. Higher levels of legitimacy and trust in public organizations increase citizen compliance with laws and regulations, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the crisis response (Beetham, 1991; Easton, 1967;Marien& Hooghe, 2011;Schraff,2020). Some governance practices, however, while increasing internal effectiveness, are associated with decreased levels of perceived throughput legitimacy. Furthermore, legitimacy perceptions depend on citizen LENZ 1411 expectations; public administrations need to consider expectations and motivations but also understand that their governance decisions will potentially satisfy some but not others. In conclusion, as a profession, public administration needs a better understanding of the public's perception of fairness and legitimacy in crisis management and how it can be pursued through certain governance alternatives more than others. Finally, this study offers preliminary results of how legitimate citizens perceive the actions of governments during crisis management. Considering the comparable relevance of both process and outcome legitimacy (Van Ryzin, 2011; Vigoda-Gadot & Mizrahi, 2016), this study serves as addition to the existing research, which has so far predominantly focused on the perceptions of outcomes. However, the boundaries of this article also extend an invitation to explore a broader research agenda that addresses the relationship between process and outcomes for crisis management legitimacy. There is still a lack of knowledge about the extent to which process and outcome legitimacy interact with each other, for example, to what extent they mutually reinforce or contradict each other. Moreover, the legitimacy of crisis management process could serve to legitimize particular outcomes or even translate, to some extent, into broader diffuse legitimacy for public administration (Flink & Xu, 2024;Ma& Christensen, 2019; Stark, 2010). A more extensive exploration of the multidimensional relationship between process and outcomes is thus necessary, and could further explore areas such as the discrepancy between actual performance and citizen perceptions (Stipak, 1979) or the role of outcome favorability (Mazepus & van Leeuwen, 2019). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank Steffen Eckhard, Sebastian Koos, Maximilian Haag, and Franziska Graf for their feedback and comments on the paper. The author is also thankful for the constructive feedback received during presentations at IRSPM and ECPR, as well as the helpful suggestions from the anonymous reviewers. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. WOA Institution: ZEPPELIN UNIVERSITAET GGMBH. Consortia Name: Projekt DEAL. FUNDING INFORMATION The data collection for this article has been conducted in the context of the HybOrg research project (https://www. hyborg-projekt.de/en/), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01UG1826BX). CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The author has no conflict of interest to declare OPEN RESEARCH BADGES This article has earned a Preregistered Research Designs badge for having a preregistered research design, available at https://osf.io/3uv6h. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Supplemental material for this article is available online. The preregistration is available at https://osf.io/3uv6h. ORCID Alexa Lenz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8286-5101 1412 LENZ ENDNOTES 1 In the literature, there are several governance dilemmas that are associated with crisis management. See, for example, also the dilemma between centralization and decentralization (Altamimi et al., 2022; 't Hart et al., 1993), or immediate action versus long-term effectiveness (Rosenthal et al., 2001). 2 See preregistration plan https://osf.io/3uv6h. 3 Weinberg et al. (2014) find support for the appropriateness of population-based online panels for conducting factorial surveys. 4 Field period was scheduled in advance and therefore coincides with the Covid-19 pandemic. To not interfere with respondents' current fears and risk perceptions of the ongoing pandemic, the author deliberately chose a different crisis scenario unrelated with the pandemic. 5 The background of the 379 dropouts differs from the remaining sample with regards to gender and age. See Appendix I, for details and characteristics of the remaining sample. 6 Detailed information about the sampling procedure can be found in the Appendices Iand II. A power analysis confirmed the viability of the sample for a between-subject design (Champely et al., 2017), with the assumption of a small sized effect (f=0.1) (Cohen, 1988). The analysis indicated a minimum sample size of 1.980 (n=110 per vignette) with a 0.5 significance value and power of 0.8. 7 Pretest (N=40) was conducted in order to verify that the vignettes were comprehensible. 8 For the complete wording of all the vignettes, see Appendix IV. 9 The majority of empirical studies on the legitimacy of public administration have so far focused on the aspect of institutional trust. There, common proxies for legitimacy are trust, satisfaction, or confidence (e.g., Rölle, 2009; Van de Walle et al., 2008; Van de Walle & Migchelbrink, 2020). 10 Gender: Chi 2 =21.677, df =17, p-value =0.197; party affiliation: Chi 2 =129.08, df =119, p-value =0.2486; age: ANOVA df =17, F=1.033, p> 417; political interest: ANOVA df =17, F=1.162, p> 288. 11 All analyses have been conducted with this satisfaction variable as dependent variable, similar trends have been observed in the results, all results are reported in the Appendix IV. 12 Appendix IV provides the results for all ANOVAs. 13 Controls are reported in Table 3and in the Appendices IV and V, and include voluntary engagement, age, gender, political interest, party identification, education, and income. 14 Further information on the volunteer subgroup and the full analysis are reported in Appendix V. REFERENCES Albris, K. & Lauta, K.C. (2021) Causing wrong while doing good: on the question of liability for volunteers in emergencies. Environmental Hazards,20(1), 78–91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1651687 Altamimi, H., Liu, Q. & Jimenez, B. (2022) Not too much, not too little: centralization, decentralization, and organizational change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,33, 170–185. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac016 Anaya-Arenas, A.M., Ruiz, A. & Renaud, J. (2018) Importance of fairness in humanitarian relief distribution. Production Planning & Control,29(14), 1145–1157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1542157 Ansell, C. & Boin, A. (2019) Taming deep uncertainty: the potential of pragmatist principles for understanding and improving strategic crisis management. Administration & Society,51(7), 1079–1112. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0095399717747655 Ansell, C., Boin, A. & Keller, A. (2010) Managing transboundary crises: identifying the building blocks of an effective response system. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,18(4), 195–207. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1468-5973.2010.00620.x Atzmüller, C. & Steiner, P.M. (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology,6(3), 128–138. Auspurg, K. & Hinz, T. (2014) Factorial survey experiments. Thousand Oaks: Sage. BAMF. (2017) Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2017: Asyl. Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. Available from http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/bundesamt-in-zahlen-2017-asyl.pdf? __blob=publicationFile Barsky, L., Trainor, J., Torres, M. & Aguirre, B. (2007) Managing volunteers: FEMA's urban search and rescue programme and interactions with unaffiliated responders in disaster response. Disasters,31(4), 495–507. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01021.x LENZ 1413 Bechtel, M.M. & Hainmueller, J. (2011) How lasting is voter gratitude? An analysis of the shortand long-term electoral returns to beneficial policy. American Journal of Political Science,55(4), 852–868. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x Beetham, D. (1991) The legitimation of power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bell, E., Ter-Mkrtchyan, A., Wehde, W. & Smith, K. (2021) Just or unjust? How ideological beliefs shape street-level bureaucrats' perceptions of administrative burden. Public Administration Review,81(4), 610–624. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.13311 Bogumil, J., Hafner, J. & Kuhlmann, S. (2016) Verwaltungshandeln in der Flüchtlingskrise. Vollzugsdefizite und Koordinationschaos bei der Erstaufnahme und der Asylantragsbearbeitung. Die Verwaltung,49(2), 289–300. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.49.2.289 Bogumil, J. & Kuhlmann, S. (2015) Legitimation von Verwaltungshandeln—Veränderungen und Konstanten. Budrich Journals, 8(2), 237–251. Boin, A. & Rhinard, M. (2022) Crisis management performance and the European Union: the case of COVID-19. Journal of European Public Policy,30, 655–675. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2141304 Bovens, M. (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. European Law Journal,13(4), 447–468. Bovens, M. & Schillemans, T. (2011) The challenge of multiple accountability. Does redundancy lead to overload? In: Dubnick, M.J. & Frederickson, H.G. (Eds.) Accountable governance. Problems and promises. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 3–21. Carlson, E.J., Poole, M.S., Lambert, N.J. & Lammers, J.C. (2017) A study of organizational reponses to dilemmas in interorganizational emergency management. Communication Research,44(2), 287–315. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1177/0093650215621775 Champely, S., Ekstrom, C., Dalgaard, P., Gill, J., Weibelzahl, S., Anandkumar, A. et al. (2017) pwr: basic functions for power analysis. Christensen, T., Fimreite, A.L. & Lægreid, P. (2011) Crisis management: the perceptions of citizens and civil servants in Norway. Administration & Society,43(5), 561–594. Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. & Rykkja, L.H. (2016) Organizing for crisis management: building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review,76(6), 887–897. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12558 Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. & Rykkja, L.H. (2019) Organizing for societal security and crisis management: governance capacity and legitimacy. In: Lægreid, P. & Rykkja, L.H. (Eds.) Societal security and crisis management: governance capacity and legitimacy. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–23. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. Comfort, L.K. (2007) Crisis management in hindsight: cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review,67, 189–197. Deephouse, D.L., Bundy, J., Tost, L.P. & Suchman, M.C. (2017) Organizational legitimacy: six key questions. In: Greenwood, R., Meyer, R.E., Lawrence, T.B. & Oliver, C. (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage, Vol. 4, pp. 27–54. Denhardt, R.B. & Denhardt, J.V. (2000) The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559 Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/977437 Deverell, E. (2010) Flexibility and rigidity in crisis management and learning at Swedish public organizations. Public Management Review,12(5), 679–700. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719031003633946 Drabek, T. & McEntire, D. (2003) Emergent phenomena and the sociology of disaster: lessons, trends and opportunities from the research literature. Disaster Prevention and Management,12(2), 97–112. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09653560310474214 Easton, D. (1967) A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley. Eckhard, S., Lenz, A., Seibel, W., Roth, F. & Fatke, M. (2021) Latent hybridity in administrative crisis management: the German refugee crisis of 2015/16. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,31(2), 416–433. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa039 Flink, C. & Xu, X. (2024) Cutback management strategies and citizen evaluation of government. Public administration,102(2), 715–732. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12947 Fütterer-Akili, S. (2022) Corona als Türöffner für Korruption? Eine theoretische Diskussion. In: Wolf, S. & Graeff, P. (Eds.) Corona und Korruption: Gesellschaftswissenschaftliche Analysen. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp. 19–56. Gadson, D.N. (2020) Advancing equity in public administration: prioritizing equality of outcomes in the COVID-19 crisis. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy,11(4), 449–457. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12206 Gau, J.M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E.A. & Brunson, R.K. (2012) Examining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice,40(4), 333–343. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.002 Hamann, U., Karakayali, S., Wallis, M. & Höfler, L. (2016) Koordinationsmodelle und Herausforderungen ehrenamtlicher Flüchtlingshilfe in den Kommunen. Berlin: Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations und Migrationsforschung. 1414 LENZ Harris, M., Shaw, D., Scully, J., Smith, C.M. & Hieke, G. (2017) The involvement/exclusion paradox of spontaneous volunteering: new lessons and theory from winter flood episodes in England. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 352–371. Henstra, D. (2010) Evaluating local government emergency management programs: what framework should public managers adopt? Public Administration Review,70(2), 236–246. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02130.x Herian, M.N., Hamm, J.A., Tomkins, A.J. & Pytlik Zillig, L.M. (2012) Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: the moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,22(4), 815–840. Hvidman, U. & Andersen, S.C. (2016) Perceptions of public and private performance: evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review,76(1), 111–120. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12441 IfD. (2016) Situation und Strategien in den Kommunen. Zum Umgang mit der aktuellen Zuwanderung von Asylsuchenden. Allensbach am Bodensee, Germany: Institut für Demoskopie (IfD) Allensbach. Innes, A.J. (2010) When the threatened become the threat: the construction of asylum seekers in British media narratives. International Relations,24(4), 456–477. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117810385882 Iusmen, I. & Boswell, J. (2017) The dilemmas of pursuing ‘throughput legitimacy’through participatory mechanisms. West European Politics,40(2), 459–478. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1206380 Johansson, R., Danielsson, E., Kvarnlöf, L., Eriksson, K. & Karlsson, R. (2018) At the external boundary of a disaster response operation: the dynamics of volunteer inclusion. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,26(4), 519–529. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12228 Jung, K., Song, M. & Park, H.W. (2018) Filling the gap between bureaucratic and adaptive approaches to crisis management: lessons from the Sewol Ferry sinking in South Korea. Quality & Quantity,52(1), 277–294. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11135-017-0467-x Kapucu, N. (2006) Public-nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts of emergencies. Public Administration,84(1), 205–220. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2006.00500.x Karakayali, S. (2019) The Welcomers: how volunteers frame their commitment for refugees. In: Feischmidt, M., Pries, L. & Cantat, C. (Eds.) Refugee protection and civil society in Europe. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 221–241. Keiser, L.R. (1999) State bureaucratic discretion and the administration of social welfare programs: the case of social security disability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,9(1), 87–106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordjournals.jpart.a024407 Kirmaier, C. & Zimmerly, T. (2015) Güll wittert Vetternwirtschaft. Merkur. Available from https://www.merkur.de/lokales/ dachau/landkreis/guell-wittert-vetternwirtschaft-5628029.html [Accessed 1st April 2023]. Koch, C.M., Moise, I., Helbing, D. & Donnay, K. (2020) Public debate in the media matters: evidence from the European refugee crisis. EPJ Data Science,9(12), 1–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2957362 Koos, S. & Seibel, V. (2019) Solidarity with refugees across Europe. A comparative analysis of public support for helping forced migrants. European Societies,21(5), 704–728. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2019.1616794 Laegreid, P. & Rykkja, L.H. (2015) Organizing for “wicked problems”—analyzing coordination arrangements in two policy areas. International Journal of Public Sector Management,28(6), 475–493. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJPSM-01-2015-0009 Lakoma, K. (2024) A comparative study of governance changes on the perceptions of accountability in fire and rescue services in England. Public Administration,102(1), 3–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12923 Lenz, A. (2022) Trust in Times of crisis: opportunities and pitfalls of cooperation between volunteers and local governments. Budrich Journals,15(1), 130–148. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v15i1.09 Lenz, A. & Eckhard, S. (2023) Conceptualizing and explaining flexibility in administrative crisis management: a cross-district analysis in Germany. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,33(3), 485–497. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/muac038 Lewis, M.W. & Smith, W.K. (2014) Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,50(2), 127–149. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322 Ma, L. & Christensen, T. (2019) Government trust, social trust, and citizens' risk concerns: evidence from crisis management in China. Public Performance & Management Review,42(2), 383–404. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15309576.2018.1464478 Malhotra, N. & Kuo, A.G. (2008) Attributing blame: the public's response to hurricane Katrina. The Journal of Politics,70(1), 120–135. Marien, S. & Hooghe, M. (2011) Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research,50(2), 267–291. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01930.x LENZ 1415 Martin, E.C. & Nolte, I.M. (2020) Might less accountability be more? INGO-volunteer relationships in the European refugee response. Public Management Review,22(3), 408–431. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019. 1599057 Mazepus, H. & van Leeuwen, F. (2019) Fairness matters when responding to disasters: an experimental study of government legitimacy. Governance,33(3), 621–637. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12440 McLennan, B.J., Whittaker, J., Kruger, T. & Handmer, J. (2021) Navigating authority and legitimacy when ‘outsider’volunteers co-produce emergency management services. Environmental Hazards,20(1), 7–22. Available from: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17477891.2020.1727829 Meyer, H. (2016) Migration, Asyl und Integration als organisatorische Herausforderung für Land und Kommunen. VM Verwaltung & Management,22(3), 144–157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9856-2016-3-144 Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Cohen, N. (2021a) Drivers of trust in emergency organizations networks: the role of readiness, threat perceptions and participation in decision making. Public Management Review,23(2), 233–253. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1674367 Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Cohen, N. (2021b) How well do they manage a crisis? The government's effectiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Administration Review,81(6), 1120–1130. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.13370 Mizrahi, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Van Ryzin, G.G. (2010) Public sector management, trust, performance, and participation: a citizens survey and national assessment in the United States. Public Performance & Management Review,34(2), 268–312. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340207 Moon, M.J. (2020) Fighting COVID-19 with agility, transparency, and participation: wicked policy problems and new governance challenges. Public Administration Review,80(4), 651–656. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13214 Moore, M.H. (1995) Creating public value: strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Moynihan, D.P. (2009) The network governance of crisis response: case studies of incident command systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,19(4), 895–915. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun033 Mutz, D.C. (2011) Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Nohrstedt, D., Bynander, F., Parker, C. & 't Hart, P. (2018) Managing crises collaboratively: prospects and problems—a systematic literature review. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance,1(4), 257–271. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx018 Olsen, O.E., Kruke, B.I. & Hovden, J. (2007) Societal safety: concept, borders and dilemmas. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,15(2), 69–79. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2007.00509.x Peters, B.G. (2001) The politics of bureaucracy: An introduction to comparative public administration. 5th edition. London: Routledge. Rivera, J.D. & Knox, C.C. (2022) Defining social equity in emergency management: a critical first step in the nexus. Public Administration Review,83, 1170–1185. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13574 Rivera, J.D. & Knox, C.C. (2023) Bureaucratic discretion, social equity, and the administrative legitimacy dilemma: complications of new public service. Public Administration Review,83(1), 65–77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar. 13550 Rölle, D. (2009) Vertrauen in die öffentliche Verwaltung im internationalen Vergleich: Gemeinsamkeiten, Unterschiede und deren Erklärungsfaktoren. In: Hill, H. (Ed.) Verwaltungsmodernisierung im europäischen Vergleich. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 291–310. Rosenthal, U., Boin, A. & Comfort, L.K. (2001) The changing world of crises and crisis management. In: Rosenthal, U., Boin, A. & Comfort, L.K. (Eds.) Managing crises: threats, dilemmas, opportunities. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher, pp. 5–27. Scharpf, F.W. (1999) Regieren in Europa: Effektiv und demokratisch?. Frankfurt a.M: Campus Verlag. Schmidt, A. (2019) Tensions and dilemmas in crisis governance: responding to citizen volunteers. Administration & Society, 51(7), 1171–1195. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719836734 Schmidt, V. (2013) Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: input, output and ‘throughput’.Political Studies,61(1), 2–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x Schmidt, V. & Wood, M. (2019) Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: procedural mechanisms of accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance. Public Administration,97(4), 727–740. Schraff, D. (2020) Political trust during the Covid-19 pandemic: rally around the flag or lockdown effects? European Journal of Political Research,60(4), 1007–1017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12425 Seo, M.-G. & Creed, W.D. (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review,27(2), 222–247. Smith, W.K. & Besharov, M.L. (2019) Bowing before dual gods: how structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly,64(1), 1–44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826 1416 LENZ Smith, W.K. & Lewis, M.W. (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review,36(2), 381–403. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223 Stark, A. (2010) Legislatures, legitimacy and crises: the relationship between representation and crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management,18(1), 2–13. Stark, A. (2014) Bureaucratic values and resilience: an exploration of crisis management adaptation. Public Administration, 92(3), 692–706. Stipak, B. (1979) Citizen satisfaction with urban services: potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review,39(1), 46–52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3110378 Suchman, M.C. (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 571–610. Sutter, D. & Smith, D.J. (2017) Coordination in disaster: nonprice learning and the allocation of resources after natural disasters. The Review of Austrian Economics,30(4), 469–492. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-016-0369-5 't Hart, P., Rosenthal, U. & Kouzmin, A. (1993) Crisis decision making: the centralization thesis revisited. Administration & Society,25(1), 12–45. Twigg, J. & Mosel, I. (2017) Emergent groups and spontaneous volunteers in urban disaster response. Environment and Urbanization,29(2), 443–458. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247817721413 Van de Walle, S. & Migchelbrink, K. (2020) Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions. Journal of Economic Policy Reform,25(1), 9–27. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2020.1719103 Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S. & Bouckaert, G. (2008) Trust in the public sector: is there any evidence for a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences,74(1), 47–64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0020852307085733 Van Ryzin, G.G. (2011) Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 745–760. Van Slyke, D.M. & Roch, C.H. (2004) What do they know, and whom do they hold accountable? Citizens in the government–nonprofit contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,14(2), 191–209. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh013 van Vugt, M. & Samuelson, C.D. (1999) The impact of personal metering in the management of a natural resource crisis: a social dilemma analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25(6), 735–750. Available from: https://doi.org/10. 1177/0146167299025006008 Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Mizrahi, S. (2016) Managing democracies in turbulent times. Berlin: Springer. Weber, M. (2002) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 5th rev edition, Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr. (1922). Webb, G.R. & Chevreau, F.-R. (2006) Planning to improvise: the importance of creativity and flexibility in crisis response. International Journal of Emergency Management,3(1), 66–72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2006. 010282 Weinberg, J.D., Freese, J. & McElhattan, D. (2014) Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science,1, 292–310. Whittaker, J., McLennan, B. & Handmer, J. (2015) A review of informal volunteerism in emergencies and disasters: definition, opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,13, 358–368. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.010 Willems, J. (2020) Public servant stereotypes: it is not (at) all about being lazy, greedy and corrupt. Public Administration, 98(4), 807–823. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12686 Wu, W.-N. & Jung, K. (2016) A missing link between citizen participation, satisfaction, and public performance: evidences from the city and county of San Francisco. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management,2(4), 392–410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPSPM.2016.079720 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. How to cite this article: Lenz, A. (2024). Managing crises as if no one is watching? Governance dilemmas from a public perspective. Public Administration,102(4), 1397–1417. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12980 LENZ 1417