When the System does not Fit: Coping Strategies of Employment Consultants

TL;DR

This study examines how employment consultants in Germany adapt their behavior during face-to-face client interactions to navigate and extend the boundaries of case and knowledge management systems, revealing their active role.

Contribution

It uncovers the coping strategies employed by employment consultants, highlighting their active mediation role and the influence of organizational and political factors.

Findings

Consultants use various strategies to extend system boundaries.

Behavioral patterns are shaped by understanding of work and client needs.

Consultants act as conscious mediators, not passive system interfaces.

Abstract

Case and knowledge management systems are spread at the frontline across public agencies. However, such systems are dedicated for the collaboration within the agency rather than for the face-to-face interaction with the clients. If used as a collaborative resource at the frontline, case and knowledge management systems might disturb the service provision by displaying unfiltered internal information, disclosing private data of other clients, or revealing the limits of frontline employees' competence (if they cannot explain something) or their authority (if they cannot override something). Observation in the German Public Employment Agency shows that employment consultants make use of various coping strategies during face-to-face consultations to extend existing boundaries set by the case and knowledge management systems and by the rules considering their usage. The analysis of these coping strategies unveils the forces that shape the conduct of employment consultants during their contacts with clients: the consultants' own understanding of work, the actual and the perceived needs of the clients, and the political mission as well as the internal rules of the employment agency. The findings form a twofold contribution: First, they contribute to the discourse on work in employment agencies by illustrating how the complexities of social welfare apparatus demonstrate themselves in singular behavioural patterns. Second, they contribute to the discourse on screen-level bureaucracy by depicting the consultants as active and conscious mediators rather than passive interfaces between the system and the client.