Digital governance is gaining increasing interest in public administration because it enables public value creation in a more responsive and accountable manner (Larsson and Skjølsvik 2023; Valle-Cruz 2019; Twizeyimana and Andersson 2019; Meijer et al. 2018). It holds promise for public organizations to improve service quality, reduce bureaucracy, increase citizen participation, formalize the rules and increase equality, fairness, and transparency (Larsson 2021; Twizeyimana and Andersson 2019; Bannister and Connolly 2014). For this reason, researchers have chosen to investigate the impact of digital governance on reducing the risk of corruption.

In the case of corruption, research indicates that the level of corruption detection in the public sector increases due to greater financial transparency (Puron-Cid et al. 2019), some of which is pursued through digitalization initiatives. Indeed, technological development is the best predictor of corruption control, according to Androniceanu et al. (2022). However, Mutungi et al. (2019) argue that corruption depends primarily on conducive conditions and social predispositions, which digital technologies cannot always control and moderate. In the same vein, Valle-Cruz (2019) add that "it is complicated to confirm that corruption is reduced using technologies" (p. 542), although there is a chance for this, e.g. using AI. At the same time, some evidence from the rapid digitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that digitalization can open newer doors to corruption (Polzer and Goncharenko 2022). Finally, the results of a study by Mouna et al. (2020) suggest no direct relationship between digitalization and corruption but, rather, mediated by economic growth.

As mentioned above, there is a lack of consistency in researchers' opinions regarding digital governance pitfalls and regulatory hurdles in public organizations. Therefore, this paper aims to determine how digital governance affects corruption and ethical decision-making in public organizations. To achieve this aim, we used Flyverbom's (2022) digital prism as a conceptual framing.

We provide evidence based on the results of the exploratory study derived from 21 individual in-depth Interviews conducted with purposefully sampled public servants in Poland from local government, education, police, anticorruption bureau, and fire brigade. In doing so, we are responding to the challenge thrown by Agostino, Saliterer and Steccolini (2021) to advance knowledge of the effect of digitalization on accountability and transparency, particularly in less-studied countries.

We conducted interviews in the second half of 2023. The results present the public servants' and experts' opinions about the impact of implementing information technologies (IT) on corruption in Poland. We analyzed the possibilities created by IT, identified public administration problems that can be reduced thanks to IT, examined the attitude of public servants towards IT, and explored the relationships between IT use and public service transparency. Our findings thus far enrich the digital governance theory, pointing out barriers and opportunities for digitalization to promote good governance and reduce corruption.

Currently over 350 algorithms used by the public sector in the Netherlands have been registered in the national Algorithm Register, though this is likely an underestimation of the actual number of algorithmic systems in use. This increasing integration of algorithms in the public sector has raised several concerns, which has become apparent with global scandals such as the childcare benefits scandal in the Netherlands, the Robodebt scandal in Australia, and the issues surrounding the COMPAS system in the United States. These systems perpetuated systemic biases, targeted vulnerable citizens and led to severe financial hardship and psychological distress. In certain cases, this has led to children being taken away from their parents, or even suicides. These scandals have played a huge role in the increased call for oversight and governance of algorithmic systems worldwide, visible in for example international attempts to legislate the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence, such as the AI Act within the European Union.

As legislation often moves at a sluggish pace, governments and NGOs have stepped in to fill the gap by creating additional governance and oversight instruments. Governance and oversight instruments and mechanisms are shaped by social negotiations, values, and power dynamics – not merely the technical aspect of the algorithmic system. Policymakers, technological experts, regulatory bodies, and the public actively shape the rules and norms surrounding algorithmic oversight. Different stakeholders may advocate for diverse approaches to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in algorithmic decision-making. Using the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) approach, the aim of this article is to analyse how governance instruments in the Dutch context have emerged, and how this debate eventually led to the creation of several instruments meant to aid the civil servants in working with the algorithms, and prevent detrimental consequences for citizens.

Analysing media articles, parliamentary documents, and advisory reports is crucial for unravelling the social construction of algorithm oversight mechanisms. Media articles provide insights into public perceptions, framing the discourse around algorithmic governance, and shedding light on societal expectations and concerns. Parliamentary documents, including debates and policy reports, offer a glimpse into the legislative discourse, showcasing the perspectives of lawmakers and the regulatory framework's evolution. Advisory reports from for example societal organisations, think tanks, and technology companies themselves provide expert analyses, influence policy recommendations and shape the narrative on algorithmic oversight. By combining the insights from these sources, the multifaceted dynamics influencing the construction of oversight mechanisms can be discerned.

The findings of this research will include an overview of the different stakeholders with regard to algorithmic governance in the Netherlands. Moreover, the analysis of parliamentary documents and debates will provide insights into the legislative responses and policy developments related to algorithmic oversight within the public sector. By understanding the policy landscape, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on algorithmic accountability and the socio-technical creation of governance instruments and mechanisms.

The emerging application of algorithmic decision-making systems in public administration bears many challenges regarding fairness, opaqueness, and societal values. Especially the reduction or erasure of human decision-making in public e-services raises important questions, as citizens are used to being served by human public officials by default. Current research on AI and algorithmic decision-making shows that the use of algorithms also affects citizens’ perceptions of legitimacy. We applied a discrete-choice experiment to test if algorithmic decision-making influences citizens' preferences for public e-services of different quality and their respective legitimacy perceptions of the responsible public organization. The results from a sample of 1214 German citizens indicate that contrary to our expectations, there are no systematic differences in perceptions and preferences between citizens served by an algorithm and those granted a decision by a human bureaucrat. The results have implications for research on algorithmic decision-making in the public sector and public e-services. They demand further investigation into when and how citizens even care about the application of algorithmic decision systems in the public sector.

Implementing networked relations with citizens is a complex government task (Meijer, 2015; Rose et al., 2015). It requires leadership of complex decision-making and readying the organization and stakeholders for novel technologies (Kempeneer & Heylen, 2023; Pittaway & Montazemi, 2020; Rose et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2023). Previous research suggests that digital leadership should comprise relation-oriented leadership, ensuring that followers have the right attitude and skills for digitalization (Weber et al., 2022), and task-oriented leadership, ensuring alignment between new technologies and organization structures (Brunner et al., 2023).

However, scholars have recently problematized public leaders’ own negative attitudes towards digital technologies as well as their lack of digital literacy (Kempeneer & Heylen, 2023). Moreover, research has shown that digital stakeholders besides the formal leader hold a central role overcoming barriers to digital government (Wilson & Mergel, 2022). Consequently, leading e-governance cannot rest solely on the shoulders of formal leaders, and involving employees in decisions can improve adaptation of ICT (Hansen & Nørup, 2017).

This paper therefore explores opportunities of distributing leadership as a broader social accomplishment when leading e-governance initiatives (cf. Cortellazzo et al., 2019). Distributed leadership refers to multiple actors jointly executing leadership tasks (Jakobsen et al., 2023). Since distributed leadership is difficult to accomplish (Chreim & MacNaughton, 2016; Jonasson et al., 2018), there is a need to explore how distribution of digital leadership can take place.

The aim of our study was to investigate how the distribution of digital leadership, involving health professionals, IT specialists, public administrators, and formal leaders, is accomplished. We investigate this based on a qualitative study of implementing novel network-based interaction with citizens in a Nordic healthcare setting. Based on data from interviews (n=28) and one and a half years participant observations (cf. Bernard, 2006), findings show that distributing digital leadership entails three central activities: 1) identifying relevant digital leadership 2) timing the distribution of leadership with technology development 3) creating leadership connections across administrative boundaries. The findings suggest that while distributing digital leadership can help implement networked relations with citizens, such distribution is a complex process, which requires significant people and technology insights in own organization. The study thereby contributes with insight into how distributing digital leadership can be accomplished to comprise both relation- and task-oriented leadership of e-governance.

References

Bernard, R. H. (2006). Research methods in anthropology, Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Altamira Press.

Brunner, T. J., Schuster, T., & Lehmann, C. (2023). Leadership’s long arm: The positive influence of digital leadership on managing technology-driven change over a strengthened service innovation capacity. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 988808.

Chreim, S., & MacNaughton, K. (2016). Distributed leadership in health care teams: Constellation role distribution and leadership practices. Health care management review, 41(3), 200-212.

Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in psychology, 1938.

Hansen, M. B., & Nørup, I. (2017). Leading the implementation of ICT innovations. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 851-860.

Jakobsen, M. L., Kjeldsen, A. M., & Pallesen, T. (2023). Distributed leadership and performance‐related employee outcomes in public sector organizations. Public Administration, 101(2), 500-521.

Jonasson, C., Kjeldsen, A. M., & Ovesen, M. S. (2018). Dynamics of distributed leadership during a hospital merger. Journal of health organization and management.

Kempeneer, S., & Heylen, F. (2023). Virtual state, where are you? A literature review, framework and agenda for failed digital transformation. Big Data & Society, 10(1), 20539517231160528.

Meijer, A. (2015). E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government information quarterly, 32(2), 198-206.

Pittaway, J. J., & Montazemi, A. R. (2020). Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments. Government information quarterly, 37(4), 101474.

Rose, J., Flak, L. S., & Sæbø, Ø. (2018). Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: Framing a value-oriented normative core. Government information quarterly, 35(3), 362-374.

Rose, J., Persson, J. S., Heeager, L. T., & Irani, Z. (2015). Managing e‐Government: value positions and relationships. Information systems journal, 25(5), 531-571.

Wang, X., Wei, X., Van Wart, M., McCarthy, A., Liu, C., Kim, S., & Ready, D. H. (2023). The role of E-leadership in ICT utilization: a project management perspective. Information Technology and Management, 24(2), 99-113.

Weber, E., Büttgen, M., & Bartsch, S. (2022). How to take employees on the digital transformation journey: An experimental study on complementary leadership behaviors in managing organizational change. Journal of Business Research, 143, 225-238.

Wilson, C., & Mergel, I. (2022). Overcoming barriers to digital government: mapping the strategies of digital champions. Government information quarterly, 39(2), 101681.