In this chapter we ask: How and why do audience members vary in the way they are attracted to a guru and the management ideas they are promoting? Using analyses of interviews with management practitioners who have attended guru lectures, the chapter indicates how a broader and more fine-grained understanding of consumption activity is essential in providing a more advanced view of audience differentiation and helps to better understand the success and impact of management ideas among a managerial audience. First, our analysis reveals four different key managerial audience members’ consumption orientations – the gratifications that individual member seek – (devoted, engaged, non-committal and critical) towards gurus and the management ideas they are promoting. Second, the findings show how audience members’ orientations are constructed in relation to their perceptions of different key audience activities (selectivity, involvement and utility) at different stages of the consumption process. Third, the chapter explains how, and to what extent, the use of these orientations relates to the design of the guru lecture and the audience members’ background characteristics.

In this chapter we not only challenge the current views of the nature of contemporary managerial work – to one that includes a conceptualisation of management practitioners as audience members both within and beyond mass communication settings, but also contribute to bridging and extending the currently disconnected approaches to studying the impact of ideas. On the basis of these findings, the book argues that current approaches to studying the impact of management ideas need a much deeper and broader view by further integrating important aspects of flow concerning scope and agentic meaning making particularly in relation to (A) the dynamics of managerial audience activities, (B) the protracted involvement of managerial audiences, (C) the managerial audience members’ social uses of ideas and (D) the managerial audience members’ textual productivity.

This chapter aims to open the black box of co-creation, look at its constituent parts and inner mechanics, identify the drivers of and barriers to different parts of the process, and highlight the tools that may support and facilitate the co-creation of public value. Hence, to provide a baseline for subsequent analysis, it establishes an analytical framework for studying processes of co-creation. While recognizing that the dynamic processes of co-creation are often extremely complex and full of gaps, overlaps, jumps, feedback loops, and iterations, it makes sense for heuristic reasons to speak of four phases in the process of co-creating public solutions: 1) initiation; 2) design; 3) implementation; and 4) consolidation, upscaling, and diffusion. Each of these phases can be broken down into three interlacing sub-phases. This chapter carefully elaborates what goes on in the different phases and sub-phases of co-creation and identifies relevant drivers and barriers that may affect the internal dynamics of these phases and sub-phases.

The chapter provides an initial definition of co-creation and explains why co-creation is a new and powerful vision. It proceeds to reflect on the current demands and possibilities for co-creation and then identifies the main enablers, before concluding with brief discussion of the wider perspectives and consequences of a turn to co-creation.

This chapter argues that co-creation requires what new research refers to as generative governance. It first explores the meaning of the term “generative” and the concept of “generativity,” and then examines some key components of generative governance (interactions, tools, processes, and institutions) and how they relate to co-creation. The main argument is that generative governance involves the formation of platforms that in turn foster arenas where co-creation processes can unfold.

Along with the potential benefits and advantages, co-creation presents a series of dilemmas that may hamper the expansion of co-creation as a core principle of governance. In addition, co-creation has a dark side that we seldom talk about. Finally, co-creation may jeopardize cherished norms and values of liberal democracy. Our attempt to elevate co-creation to a key governance principle must look these challenges in the eye and reflect on the possibilities for either circumventing them or mitigating their negative effect. Consequently, this chapter aims to assess the acknowledged governance dilemmas inherent to co-creation, shed light on the dark side of co-creation, and consider the conflicts that may arise between co-creation and some of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy. It also reflects on the normative status of co-creation as a way of democratizing public governance and insists that co-creation is neither a settled concept nor a perfected ideal, but rather a work in progress in need of further reflection and experiential learning.

This chapter takes issue with idea that governance is produced in and through a linear chain of command and seeks to replace this with an ecosystem perspective that appreciates co-created governance. Equipped with this new perspective on public governance, the chapters explores the empirical prevalence of co-creation in different policy sectors and countries and concludes that co-creation is everywhere in the sense that it is found in must policy sectors and most countries. At the same time, co-creation is argued to be nowhere in the sense that it has not yet become a core principle of governance.

In this chapter we ask: How do gurus present their ideas as being generally applicable, significant and potentially relevant to individual audience members? The chapter shows how management gurus use stories about change to communicate the successful application and adaptability of their ideas, to construct an ambiguity that allows scope for managerial audience members to tailor the ideas to different contexts. Regardless of whether these stories are framed as epiphanic or non-epiphanic, they exhibit three common practices. First, the stories exemplify the gurus’ ideas by focusing on a particular case and on singular themes, making them more easily apprehensible and enabling the audience to collectively concentrate on a narrow set of events. Second, the stories are told in an engaging and entertaining manner, which heightens audience attentiveness and thereby makes the stories more memorable. Third, following the stories, gurus move from the particular to the general in order to demonstrate the applicability of the ideas exemplified by the stories to a wide range of contexts. This generally coincides with, and is marked by, a shift to a serious (or more serious) footing.

The aim of this final chapter is to take stock of the current research on co-creation in the public sector and assess the prospect for co-creation to become a core principle of public governance. The chapter also sets an agenda for future research and identifies some disruptive steps that the key social and political actors must take in order to advance co-creation.

This chapter provides the conceptual foundations for discussing the process and impact of co-creation as a mode of governance as developed in subsequent chapters. To do this, the chapter traces the genealogy of the notion of co-creation, discussing how it has become increasingly central to social science research, and defining the concept in ways that distinguish it from similar and related concepts such as corporatism and collaborative governance. Building on this genealogical approach, the chapter also discusses how recently developed theories may contribute to our understanding of the concept of co-creation and support its practical application. Finally, yet critically, the chapter will justify our attempt to elevate the concept from its original narrow focus on service production to a concept that aspires to become a new governance paradigm supplementing and partially supplanting Classical Public Administration and New Public Management.

Transforming the way that public governance is produced and delivered is difficult given the combination of bureaucratic politics and institutional path-dependence. To imagine whether it is still possible, this chapter looks at how public leaders can transform public institutions through intentional reform and what kind of change they must bring about in order to advance and support co-creation. First, it discusses how different forms of strategic management can help to spur the transition to co-creation. Next, it presents four crucial conditions for enabling the future expansion of co-creation into a predominant mode of governance: 1) the creation of new institutional designs; 2) the cultivation of new forms of leadership and management; 3) the transformation of the role perceptions of key social and political actors; and 4) the development of new ways of measuring effects. The conclusion critically examines competing scenarios for the development of co-creation into a mode of governance and presents a five-step model for the transition to co-creation.