Transformation in the management of Danish public-sector knowledge-intensive organizations and dealing with ambiguity – identity control and organizational management technology Abstract The public sector currently faces challenges from extensive transformations that have necessitated new management tools. In this context, concepts such as social capital are introduced as measurable and progressive organizational tools which have spread like mantras in the public sector in its efforts to meet these challenges. In this article, we analyse this phenomenon in the light of ambiguity as described primarily by management scholar Mats Alvesson. In his understanding, these concepts are surrounded by ambiguity, which means that in practice they can be in stark contrast to what is intended, and the claimed increase of well-being and productivity does not necessarily go hand in hand, since role conflict and role ambiguity might lead to work-related stress. Moreover, these transformations in themselves allow for consultancy and expert assistance. Keywords: identity regulation, role conflict, ambiguity, transformation processes, work-related stress Introduction In recent years, the public sector, like other sectors in Denmark, has experienced extensive transformations that have necessitated new management tools. Up until the 1980s and 1990s, the public sector was dominated by a management practice known collectively as New Public Management. Recently, the focus on results has become more predominant (Greve & Ejersbo, 2013). However, the public sector is also still characterized by many different management ideas and management instruments, making it very complex. Changes that can be seen at a societal level mean that the public sector must deal with an increasing amount of complexity. Management and decision-making in this sector can therefore be seen as very challenging. According to Greve and Ejersbo's (2013) concept coordination and cooperation, a newer type of leadership has emerged with an understanding that we have common challenges and that output measurements can help in managing the sector. Included in this new type of leadership is the assumption that measurements should be carried out on the collective results of the group rather than focusing on the individual. New public management’s focus on market mechanisms and liberal policies, such as outsourcing and privatization, has thus been replaced by an increased focus on the efficient use of resources. The perception within this kind of leadership is that there must be change not only in the sector’s structural conditions but also in the actual execution of the work (Andersen & Jensen, 2010; Christiansen, 2012; Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2014). In this context, concepts such as social capital are introduced as organizational management tools that have spread like mantras in the public sector in its efforts to meet the current challenges (Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2014). The concept of social capital has its origins in the work of several scholars with widely differing understandings and epistemological paradigms¸ the most refereed being Bourdieu and Putnam. Of interest in this paper is the way in which social capital, as suggested in Olesen et al.´s (2008) book Virksomhedens sociale kapital [The Company’s Social Capital], is the basis of a new era in which social capital is a tool and something that can support Danish companies to ensure greater efficiency and productivity, inter alia, through higher employee satisfaction. In their book, it is argued that social capital can be the strategic response to these challenges and that the concept is important for both productivity, quality, and safety (Olesen et al., 2008). The authors construct a theoretical model based on the concepts of trust, fairness, and cooperation in order to describe and measure a desired harmonious state of the organization, which is described as “an ability” (Olesen et al., 2008, p. 10). Thus, inspired by Putnam’s understanding of social capital, the authors consider social capital as a collective good that enables a given organization’s members to cooperate (Olesen et al., 2008), where members “coordinate their actions in order to create common values and benefits” (p. 40). Typical for this new understanding of, for example, social capital is that it is continuously developed in close collaboration between workplaces and scientists/consultants, and that measurement tools are developed that can measure the degree of social capital in order to enable comparisons across departments and companies. In this paper, we argue for the relevance of focusing on how transformations in the management of the public sector create an ambiguity which, according Alvesson & Sveningsson (2003), may cause confusion and compromise the purity of management as a phenomenon. The desire to control the individual employee’s identity can be interpreted as one of a series of, more or less, conscious management st...