Podcast Episode 6: “From automation to frustration”
As you know, my research project turns around the issue of digitalized public services and the challenges that come along for citizens. Digitalization is of course a very broad topic that encompasses or is related to other technologies such as automation, algorithms, artificial intelligence and machine learning. These technologies are increasingly implemented in public administrations around the world. In today’s episode I therefore take the chance to talk a bit about how automation affects citizens and more broadly the interaction and the relation between citizens and the bureaucracy. Together with my colleague Hannah Medea Breier, I have recently been working on a paper on that issue which will be published as part of an edited volume in 2025. In that paper we briefly discuss the differences between the concepts that I just mentioned, including automated decision-making and robotic process automation, which is increasingly used also in public administrations. We also discuss the challenges that come along with automation in public services both from the backend side, that is, the various processes that take place behind closed doors within the bureaucracy and that concern public officials’ work; and second, from the frontend, where automation confronts and affects citizens directly and in a way that they realize it.
The data we have gathered through interviews with citizens, ombuds and public administration employees as well as document analysis suggests that automation reinforces the already dehumanizing effect that bureaucracy tends to have. Already in the beginning of the 20th century Max Weber described bureaucracy as a machine that is based not only on the division of labour and reliance on rules and procedures, but also on hierarchy of authority, and impersonality. And we argue that this machine-like appearance of the public administration vis-a-vis the citizen is reinforced through digitalization and automation. The current developments in most parts of the world that citizens have to use more and more online public services – which can of course also have its advantages – but these developments also change the relation between citizens and the state, as citizens increasingly interact with machines instead of human agents. If you’re interested in these more theoretical topics, you’re of course cordially invited to read our paper.
In the remainder of this episode, we want to focus on some examples from our research on how the increasing automation affects citizens when they try to reach and interact with civil servants to solve certain issues of everyday life. We will share some findings from the case study in Quebec, which I already talked about in episode 3 and you will hear my colleague Hannah reading the quotes of interviewees. It might come as a surprise that we focus on citizens’ experiences particularly on the phone, but this came up as an essential issue in the interviews. And also the telephone represents the face of the public administration vis-à-vis the citizens – the face of a cold machine. Around the globe, automated or semi-automated telephone hotlines are an essential part of the streamlining process of PAs.
Among the key issues that our interview partners have reported in this context is frustration. The problems with long waiting times and the impossibility of talking to a human agent are illustrated by the statement of a citizen, including the negative emotions related to that experience,
“Well, first waiting time on the phone; and second, it's often impossible to reach public bodies by phone within a reasonable time. So when you call, you expect an answer. […] Well, like I said, once you've got the line, the interminable waiting times at the end of the line, that is 20, 30 minutes sometimes, waiting to talk to someone. And when you do talk to someone, well, often they’re still asking for information, it's identification on top of identification. […] it's the inability to get the line. I mean to call to the right place. I want to… it's completely… It's just aberrant. […] Every time you call the government, it's like that.”
And when you finally get to speak to someone, the frustration continues, as another citizen explains.
“’What's the amount on your tax return?’ […] The tax report… that means that, well, ‘I'm going to have to call you back because I don't have my tax report.’ Then I get so unnerved, the whole thing is canceled and we start all over again. It’s never ending. I know when they can appoint people…, as if to delegate this whole task to me. But I find that it leads them to shirk their responsibilities. You know, and then they don't give a damn afterwards, and then they're even more…, you know, instead of saying well at worst, make an appointment, come, […] we'll then at the same time identify all that for you. But no, they don't want to see them [the citizens] in person, that's for sure.”
The quote is an example for many other citizens who would rather like to go to the agency to discuss their matter in person, but are typically discouraged to do so. The way the interaction with the public agent unfolds, leaves the citizen with a negative feeling that the administration delegates the work to her instead of trying to solve the problem at hand in an a user-friendly way.
Another issue that was mentioned, this time by a public agent, concerns the robot-like communication that is often used by public agents in an institutional quest for standardization, and with that comes along depersonalization. The employee’s quote illustrates that personal, individual ways of communicating cannot only create positive emotions with the citizen but also with the employee.
“We answer the phone line for the entire province of Quebec. We must answer the same thing. The people who take calls for the government must be similar. It happens that this takes away the human warmth. […] I'll give you an example. I did my training, I was listened to by the person who was training me, and then the gentleman [on the phone] was very friendly, it was pleasant, we changed his address, and then it was fun, you know. Then at the end of the call, I said, "Well, thank you very much," and then, you know, he made a little joke, and I said, ‘Okay, bye.’ Instead of saying, ‘Thank you, goodbye,’ I said, ‘Bye.’ I was caught. No, you can't say ‘Bye.’ It's all too familiar. I think I understand that you have to have good French and that you have to speak well. I totally agree with that. You have to maintain a certain form of professionalism; totally agree. But why can't we ... joke a little, without ... I understand that we shouldn't start talking about our lives and that it stretches our head for 15 minutes for nothing. I understand all that, but sometimes... So, if it's a little out of the box,... In any case, if I called the government, and then I’d run into someone like me, well, I’d be very happy.”
Another key problem related to the automation and depersonalization of public services that was mentioned by citizens is that often no one can be held responsible for the answer or information provided. In addition to the lack of a concrete contact person and no one to look into the eyes, receiving answers from anonymous entities is experienced as something cold and unempathetic by some of the interviewed citizens. One of the citizens finds that the bureaucratic depersonalization is also linked to citizens’ rights and the question of honour:
“But at the same time, digitization means a huge loss of rights. Then there's that notion, not of honour, but you know when you talk to someone, when I think back a few years, or when you took the agent's name with the number. I don't know why it's the system of honour that comes to my mind. But you know, when you talk to someone, you look them in the eye. You know, there was, there's a plexiglass, you're like no, no, this is the person there who served me. If there's a conflict, you know, it's ‘I say – he says,’ but at least it's a human; whereas here, with this, it's this coldness of the administration. I think it allows to dismiss this responsibility. The phone number, the signature, the name at the bottom – it was you who said that. Yes, because I believe I've become very cynical and distrustful because I no longer believe the proofs that are sent digitally.”
Listening to these interview excerpts, there are many interesting points worth discussing in more detail, which we partly do in the paper. I only want to mention three aspects here now: One of them is technological determinism, which refers to the belief that technological advance is inevitable and pre-determined. This approach, which can be found not only among practitioners and policy-makers but also among scholars, typically overstates the influence of technology on society, while at the same time paying little to no consideration to social and institutional factors. It suggests that technology alone drives societal changes, while ignoring the complex interplay of social, cultural, and economic factors. It overlooks how human choices, policies, and social contexts shape technological development, and it can reinforce existing power imbalances by attributing too much power to technology and not enough to human agency. In addition, it fails to recognize how social actors influence and modify technology after its introduction.
The second point I would like to stress is the difference between digitalization and automation in the private sector versus the public sector. The main problem is that public services are often contacted not voluntarily but because of citizen obligations and, in addition, access and use of public services are often related to the exercise of a person’s rights. Consequently, the negative impact of automation on the relationship between citizens and the state, or its public administration, is particularly worrisome. The two scholars Verne and Bratteteig have rightly pointed out that “doing civic duties is neither paid work nor leisure.” So, the fact that numerous people spend several hours a week waiting on the phone, trying to reach a public servant can have not only individual but, in a broader context, also societal consequences.
A third point is the self-service approach that public administrations increasingly implement by means of digitalization and automation. The externalization of work from the public administration to the citizen makes it more time- and resource-consuming for the citizen who has to – rather than wants to – use the service. In fact, citizens now handle tasks that were once the responsibility of professional employees. This means that obtaining the knowledge needed to complete a certain task is increasingly put into the hands of citizens. However, since it can be difficult for citizens to acquire the adequate knowledge to complete such an administrative task, this can contribute to increasing the digital divide between citizens who have the skills and required knowledge and those who do not.
So, to sum up, I think it is crucial to also look at the potential pitfalls and downside of digitalization and automation, even though we often feel that the new technologies make our lives easier. I hope you enjoyed this episode and maybe got some new food for thought. Stay tuned!
