This article explores the accountability experiences and orientations of frontline workers implementing personalised activation services in the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). The study draws on observations and interviews (2021), with three teams of employment specialists using Supported Employment as an approach to personalised service provision, in a national programme called Extended Follow-up. Adopting the theoretical lens of accountability as behaviours of account giving, three strategies on how to adopt the accountability regime at the frontline are highlighted: (i) reporting, where one team complied with accountability requirements as the perceived best practices for achieving success in work inclusion; (ii) mitigating, where accountability requirements were fulfilled but combined with attention to how to best meet jobseekers’ needs; and (iii) reframing, where accountability requirements were challenged and redefined. The study highlights how accountability requirements may be interpreted variably, promoting personalised service innovation on the one hand or stagnation on the other.

Canada has not escaped trends in most liberal democracies with the rapid growth of agencies created by government to deliver public goods, often justified on elements of their mandate—service delivery, adjudication of disputes, regulatory oversight, among others—benefiting from an arm's-length relationship to the government of the day. Yet Canadian studies of this phenomenon remain mostly absent from the robust comparative literature theorizing and documenting the emergence of widespread “agencification” and its relationship to performance. This article draws on the Government of Canada's Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) microdata from 2017 to test key hypotheses advanced by proponents of agencification, specifically that agencies are more innovative, autonomous and efficient public organizations. We discover that those working in agencies generally report less climate of innovation and less work autonomy than those working in departments, though some types of agencies—namely regulatory and parliamentary ones—defy these trends.