Our methodological approach involved ethnographic field research. Our field study context was a Norwegian municipality that experiences significant challenges related to the social exclusion of young adults. In this setting, we aimed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the co-creation process where NAV collaborates with external organizations to help young adults in vulnerable situations finish school or enter the labor market. During our data analysis process, we narrowed our focus to specifically explore the experiences of front-line employees in external organizations collaborating with NAV.

In our field study, we specifically studied how the front-line employees in various organizations assisted young adults aged 18–30 in reaching their work-related goals. Many of these young adults faced several challenges, such as financial instability, difficult family situations, and housing issues. Furthermore, many of them had experienced neglect during their childhood. They struggled with mental health challenges and required access to psychological services, as well as services that focused on work opportunities. Due to a combination of these factors, they were particularly vulnerable to unemployment. Since 2017, NAV has been operating with mandatory activation, which means that the benefit receipt is conditioned by participation (Gjersøe & Leseth, 2021; Liden & Trætteberg. 2019). In our study, the young adults’ mandatory activities mainly involved work training. Other tasks included career guidance, applying for higher education, or reading for exams to finish school. For the young adults, the consequence of not participating in these mandatory activities was a financial cutback or at least a threat of such.

In our field study, we utilized participatory observation and in-depth interviews. By observing front-line employees’ meetings with young adults over an extended period, we gained a deep understanding of the nuances of these service interactions, as well as the different employees’ decision-making processes, their prioritization, and the challenges they navigated. The participatory observations were supplemented with audio recordings of these meetings, providing a rich dataset for analysis.

Of the 30 observed and audio-recorded meetings, 23 were immediately followed up with individual in-depth interviews with the meeting participants. A semi-structured interview guide with only a few questions was used to capture the informants’ experiences of the meetings. The participants were asked to openly reflect on how the meeting went, their relationships with the young adults they were working with, and the other actors involved in the young adults’ processes. The interviews with the front-line employees offered a unique window into their motivations, beliefs, and the intrinsic values they deemed crucial in assisting young adults. To augment our understanding, we also studied the experiences of young adults receiving services from the involved organizations. By listening to their narratives, we gained valuable insights into the effectiveness and impact of the support provided, offering a holistic view of the front-line employees’ work from the recipients’ perspectives.

The interviews and observations were interactive, meaning that the interviews provided leads for the observations in the subsequent meetings, and the observations generated curiosity and formed the basis for the subsequent interviews (Tjora, 2006). During the study, the interviews gradually became more focused on themes that were relevant to the employees’ work or specific incidents that had arisen in the young adults’ cases. In addition, while the interviews captured the experiences of the participants, the observations provided an independent perspective (Tjora, 2006), for example, on the group dynamics in the meetings.

The data collection started in January 2020, when the first author observed and recorded one meeting and conducted two interviews: one before the meeting and one afterward. She suspended the data collection from March to September 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions. The remaining and major part of the data collection was conducted between September 2020 and June 2021. The front-line employees involved in our study were employed across diverse organizations, including the youth team at the local NAV office, psychological health services, a local private organization providing work inclusion services (called ‘AllAboard’), and a local career guidance center. The organizational diversity highlighted the collaborative nature of their efforts to address the unique challenges faced by vulnerable young adults.

Table 2 shows the number of observations of meetings between front-line employees and young adults and the number of in-depth interviews conducted in relation to these meetings.

Three of these meetings were the so-called ‘triangle meetings’, where the employees in NAV, those in AllAboard and a young adult met. There were two triangle meetings between NAV employee 2 and AllAboard employee 1, and one triangle meeting between NAV employee 2 and AllAboard employee 2.

The first author did not schedule any meetings; the involved organizations arranged these as part of the original process in each young adult’s case. The selection of young adults was made by NAV and the psychological health services based on a few open criteria. Front-line employees were not actively selected but recruited because of their involvement in the cases of young adults.

Our study involved individuals in vulnerable situations. NAV’s youth team and the psychological health services were involved in designing a data collection that would not negatively affect the young adults. The study was recommended by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research.

Tjora’s (2006, 2017) stepwise deductive-inductive approach inspired the data analysis. This approach is particularly useful in analyzing rich qualitative data that initially seem unclear and confusing. This method helped us avoid taking shortcuts from the empirical data to theorizing and to ensure that our conclusions were not prematurely drawn. The first step of the analysis was purely inductive coding, where the aim was to extract the essence of the large dataset and reduce its volume. In this initial step, we only coded the experiences of front-line employees, excluding those of young adults. Next, the front-line employees’ experiences were categorized based on which organizations they worked for before we continued to generate empirically close (EC) codes (Tjora, 2017) from the descriptions of each front-line employee. Examples of these EC codes are ‘makes my job more difficult,’ ‘young adults’ health is getting worse,’ ‘has nothing to do with economy,’ ‘the requisition says,’ and ‘good at seeing the young adults’ needs.’

The next step was to group the EC codes based on our research focus: the front-line employees in the external organizations' experiences of collaborating with NAV to help young adults finish school or enter the labor market. Examples of these new codes are ‘interaction with NAV,’ ‘aim of individualization,’ and ‘providing help within control.’ We now saw that the external organizations’ experiences were largely about how NAV’s practices and procedures affected their work directly, but also indirectly by creating difficulties for the young adults they worked with. In the next step, we found that these experiences could be categorized into four groups, which we will present in the next section. In the final step, we explored how the informants’ experiences could be understood as manifestations of the governance paradigms TPA, NPM, and NPG and their co-existence. We acknowledge that these governance paradigms are broad labels and not mutually exclusive. For analytical purposes, we use the characteristics of each paradigm as ideal-typical examples.

Throughout the work inclusion processes, the young adults faced challenging and anxiety-inducing practical tasks assigned by NAV. Our analysis highlights the crucial role played by front-line employees from external organizations, namely AllAboard and psychological health services, in assisting young adults to overcome these challenges. In addition to their primary focus on finding work training opportunities and providing mental health support, they assisted young adults in interpreting information from NAV. They helped them understand how to manage different practical tasks, for example, which documents they were required to provide and how to fill in application forms correctly.

For example, shortly after a meeting with NAV, a young adult turned to a psychological health worker to seek practical advice. (S)he felt stressed because NAV requested a lease contract as part of an ongoing application for financial support, which could not be provided at the time. Although unfamiliar with these application processes, the psychological health worker did her best to assist the young adult:

Your lease contract? I think that you should send it over, because this is what your challenge is right, that you haven’t had any financial support now, and not had any money to pay your rent. And what they want is a confirmation of the exact amount, right? They (NAV) have to understand this. (Psychological health worker)

The psychological health worker highlighted the importance of receiving regular updates on the practical tasks being handled at the moment to ensure that all essential tasks were completed on time. During her meetings with the young adults, she often discussed the details of NAV- related tasks, such as different financial support systems to which these young adults could apply.

Has there been any recent meeting with AllAboard or NAV after we last talked? (…) How did you experience that? (…) what is it that you have to carry out next? And what do you have to apply for…. because I need to be updated. (…) Because you have work assessment allowance (AAP) now? (…) Have you understood exactly what that is? (Psychological health worker)

This scenario indicates that the services offered by NAV are complex and challenging for young adults in vulnerable situations to use independently, to the extent that they require continuous support to do so.

In particular, the psychological health worker continuously motivated and supported the young adults in not merely following NAV’s decisions but actively making good decisions for themselves in meetings with NAV. In an interview, the psychological health worker described,

It is about…. (S)he should be allowed to have her own voice, (s)he should be allowed to have an opinion. (…) should be allowed to disagree. (S)he should also disagree with me if (s)he disagrees with me. (…) It's no one else that is supposed to decide. But sometimes, as a young adult, you are maybe a bit unsure, can I say no to this? What happens then? (Psychological health worker)

The psychological health worker actively empowered the young adults to not let anyone else take control of their lives. For example, a young adult was planning to attend a meeting with AllAboard because (s)he felt it was mandatory, the day after (s)he had experienced a severe crisis in her life, and her mental health was not good:

(S)he (the young adult) was actually planning on going to this meeting, (…) just because it was scheduled. Then I have been the one that… I have not been saying “you should not go”, but “how is it for you to attend that meeting? (…) So that's how I must work, I must check, is this the right decision? Because they need to practice, get to know themselves, and create boundaries for themselves. (Psychological health worker)

Furthermore, the employee at the career guidance center encouraged the need for the young adults to be in charge, and not NAV. The employee described that

Often it was NAV that booked a meeting with us, on behalf of the young adult, because they thought that that the young adult needed career guidance”, and sometimes the young adults came to meetings stating that “NAV sent me here”. (Employee career center)

The employee explained how this was problematic because of the power imbalance between NAV and the young adults.

These findings indicate that in interactions with NAV, young adults in vulnerable situations merely follow NAV decisions and struggle to have a say in their work inclusion process.

The external actors used much time and resources to advocate for the young adults’ specific needs to be taken into account in NAV decisions. For example, their private economy was a significant topic of discussion in several meetings. All young adults involved in the study were financially supported by NAV and had no other source of income. Managing challenges regarding their economic situation was a common task for the employees at AllAboard and the psychological health services. An employee at AllAboard expressed her thoughts on what she found was insufficient financial support provided to a young adult by NAV, which she believed harmed the individual’s mental health. This, in turn, hindered the young adult’s ability to participate in the work-training opportunities provided by AllAboard.

I don't have anything to do with economy and stuff. But to understand that people can manage to live on (amount of money from NAV)…. That I cannot understand. (…) at least I know, for myself, if you cannot make it work economically, your health isn't getting any better. (…) It is kind of difficult now, my role in this. Because I don't have anything to do with the economy, as I said, that's on NAV. (…) then the whole process stops. (S)he has worked so hard and had such a good process… and then… So it is difficult now. (…) (AllAboard 1)

In this specific case, the employee decided to act on behalf of the young adult and put pressure on NAV to provide more resources:

(…) NAV has to enter the field and see what they can do … shall we see … (starts writing on the computer). I will send an email to your contact person in NAV right away. (…) they simply have to say a bit more about how they can contribute (AllAboard 1).

This effort made by the employee at AllAboard pushed NAV to discuss other income solutions for this young adult specifically. The employee further described this as an ongoing issue for several of the young adults. Another AllAboard employee said,

We do experience that, if the financial part is not in place… I have had participants where I have said… I understand that you are having trouble today. What is it? I haven't received what NAV has promised me, so I don't really know if I'll have food on the table for my kids tomorrow. And then they don't have much focus on the work-oriented tasks, right. So for us it is very important that such things are in place. (…) And that's why it's important to have meetings with NAV (…) so I get to say something about, you know, that this is their responsibility. (AllAboard 2)

AllAboard employees advocating for the young adults’ needs in meetings with NAV indicate that while AllAboard has service individualization as a first priority, NAV works more according to bureaucratic rules and regulations.

When NAV determined that a young adult needed resources provided by AllAboard, they sent a request for assistance. The purpose of NAV’s requisition was to describe the specific services AllAboard should provide. This request from NAV significantly influenced AllAboard employees’ approach toward the young adults and their cases. For example, in an initial meeting, the employee at AllAboard directly used the requisition from NAV to create the meeting agenda, and the requisition strongly guided their conversation. The employee also used the requisition directly to create plans for the young adult ahead. The employee further used the requisition to clarify that her main job was to meet NAV’s requirements:

We work for NAV. They send us a… what can I say… an assignment with a requisition that we have to undertake. And the goal is to, first of all, respond to what NAV wants (…) Let's take a look at the requisition. (…). Here it says… «Name» needs guidance on her process to get paid work. Finishes school in (year) and have some exams to finish in (time of year). (Employee 1 AllAboard)

As the quote illustrates, the employee read through the document word-by-word to inform the young adults of which areas she would be focusing on in the time following. In this way, the AllAboard employee’s own professional opinion, expertise and voice became almost invisible in the meeting. While the employee at AllAboard was not technically employed by NAV, she became an extension of NAV, acting like their representative in meetings. During an interview, the employee further explained her obligations to NAV regarding the demands that NAV set for her:

As soon as the participant does not fulfill the demands, we have to report back to NAV. We must report as soon as possible so they (NAV) don't pay for a service that is not exploited. (Employee 1 AllAboard)

The excerpt portrays a scenario in which the employee at AllAboard is accountable to NAV, ensuring efficient resource utilization.

Furthermore, according to young adults’ work inclusion processes, the involved actors had the so-called ‘triangle meetings’ to discuss the cases. Shortly after such a meeting, the employee at AllAboard described,

I think it went okay. We have done what we were supposed to. NAV is satisfied, so we are satisfied (laughs) (…). Of course, if NAV had disagreed with what we have done, we would have to think differently. (…) (Employee 1 AllAboard)

Apparently, the AllAboard employee was content with the meeting because NAV expressed satisfaction with her work and plans. Note that the employee laughed while making the comment, suggesting that she found humor in what she said. From her laughter, it seems that she recognized the awkwardness. She had previously emphasized that individual young adults’ wishes and needs are the decisive factor in the planning process. The comment indicates that she was aware that her primary focus should be on assisting young adults in achieving their goals rather than solely concentrating on NAV reaching theirs. Furthermore, she stated having to alter her plans if NAV does not agree, indicating a lack of control over the process and decreased autonomy in her work.

Another employee at AllAboard described that because NAV is his contractor, he needs to be cautious about what he shares in meetings with them:

(…) it is, in fact, NAV that is my contractor. The one that gave me a job. Then I need to think more carefully through what I say and how I consider my plans and such. (…) that our plans are within the “frames” that we are supposed to work within, which NAV has decided. (Employee 2 AllAboard)

He explained that, especially if the NAV representative is not familiar to him, he makes sure to show that the plan he has made adheres to their requirements, being careful not to disclose any unexpected events that deviate from the original plan. In some cases, despite his differing opinions, he refrains from strongly disagreeing with the NAV employee. He says “I can try to discuss a bit with NAV… But I must try to balance it because I can't attack NAV. I can't have that many opinions”. (Employee 2 AllAboard)

Based on these experiences, the triangle meetings appear to be a means for NAV to monitor the performance of AllAboard’s employees, to provide feedback if their work is deemed unsatisfactory, and to regulate the services they offer.

Even though AllAboard, through their continuous contact with young adults, has much knowledge about their individual needs, NAV holds considerable decision-making authority over the plans and aims created for the young adults’ work inclusion process, especially the resources used to reach these aims.

For example, the employees at AllAboard expressed feeling closely monitored and controlled by NAV in their work and that they had to make plans within NAV’s frames:

So, it is expressed by our leader that they (NAV) are watching what we are doing closely. We are measured on everything. How many times we are in touch with employers, how do we work with… it's everything. (…) What kind of control is this? Then I am just thinking that I have to do what I think has to be done in the individual's case. (…) then my leader and NAV can just come and criticize me. I'll give them good answers. (Employee 2 AllAboard)

This quote illustrates how AllAboard’s collaboration with NAV is shaped by some contractual conditions set by NAV, which the employee at AllAboard feels have a major negative impact on how he conducts his work: He feels controlled and lacks the autonomy to adjust his services to the best for the individual young adult. The employee further described,

I've become quite good at seeing what kind of needs they (young adults) have. And then, within certain frames, of course, I am willing to bend the rules a bit if I see that it helps the person I'm working with. (…) I think it (the system/NAV) makes my job more difficult. (Employee 2 AllAboard)

He felt it was necessary to bend the rules set for him in the contract with NAV to provide the help needed in the given context. He confidently stated that his extensive work experience equipped him with the knowledge to provide optimal support to the young, but the contractual rules set by NAV hindered him from fully exploiting his competencies.

First, the analysis illuminates that in collaboration with NAV, the external actors, particularly psychological health services are forced to deal with challenging, time-consuming procedures in an attempt to help the young adults navigate NAV’s services, effectively turning them into NAV’s extended arms. These tasks, such as filling out forms for economic support and documentation, appear to be closely associated with NAV’s need to perform as a rational system with standardized functions to ensure predictability and stability in delivering public services, which, importantly, is aimed at protecting citizens from arbitrary decisions and power abuse (Andersen et al., 2020). However, these findings highlight the challenges that service users have with navigating bureaucratic structures within public services, which is also shown by Caswell and Danneris (2019), and underscore the importance of reducing these barriers for service users to access them, especially those facing vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, our analysis illuminated that the external actors had to continuously motivate and empower the young adults to communicate their own needs and wishes to NAV, helping them make good decisions for themselves and not merely follow NAV’s directions. The young adults became passive recipients of services rather than active participants. This “pacification” of service users can be seen as a consequence of public organizations, shaped by TPA over decades, lack mechanisms for direct engagement with service users (Tortzen, 2019; Torfing, 2019). Also, the external actors had to advocate for the young adults’ needs towards NAV, putting pressure on them to take their individual needs into account in decision-making. This indicates that NAV does not have service individualization as a first priority. A proximate explanation is that NAV, due to TPA logics, is primarily responsible for making decisions that ensure resource optimization in compliance with existing regulations and political decisions. Also, public organizations in Scandinavia place a specifically strong emphasis on the “public ethos”, and the objective of guaranteeing equality for all service users and preventing arbitrary decisions is well-established. This also challenges the establishment of new, competing logic (Nederhand et al., 2019; Andersen et al., 2020).

Our findings indicate that the TPA logics within NAV extends far beyond NAV’s immediate services, exerting significant control over the services provided by the external actors as well. Hence, the prevalence of the bureaucratic logic within NAV leads to a situation where NAV, instead of taking on the role of a facilitator of the creation of new ideas and knowledge, which is essential in co-creation (Torfing, 2019), emerges as the dominant and superior actor in the collaboration with external actors.

Further, the analysis illuminates that the employees in the private organization AllAboard felt monitored and controlled in their work, hindering their ability to help the young adults in the way they felt was best. Even though these employees were the ones providing close follow-up support to the young adults and knew their needs the best, they described having to adjust their plans if NAV did not approve. This signals a diminished level of control, reduced autonomy, and a lack of influence in the processes they are involved in.

Our findings indicate that the collaboration between NAV and the private collaborating organization seems to be strongly influenced by NPM principles. It seems like NAV has established clear performance criteria for this external organization and has implemented several strategies to keep them in check. The experiences of AllAboard indicate a principal–agent relationship (NPM) between these two actors, where AllAboard acts as an agent employed to achieve NAV’s goals (Andersen et al., 2020; Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 2018). Instead of building a partnership based on trust, equal participation, and shared decision-making (NPG) and actively utilizing their knowledge to enhance public solutions (Torfing, 2019), NAV keeps the private organization at an ‘arm’s length,’ controlling their work and sanctioning them if they use resources unnecessarily or fail to achieve agreed objectives (NPM) (Andersen et al., 2020). This relates to previous studies showing that even though private actors are increasingly involved in providing public services, the public sector in Norway has a tradition of keeping these actors at a distance (Andersen et al., 2020).