Exploring rule‐following identity at the frontline: The roles of general self‐efficacy, gender, and attitude toward clients

Abstract

The way in which street-level bureaucrats relate to rules has intrigued scholars for decades. This article revisits the classic idea that street-level bureaucrats' rule-following identity reflects their personal insecurity and penchant for control. Building on this perspective of emotional needs, we investigate how general self-efficacy, gender, and attitude toward clients affect this identity. We expect general selfefficacy to suppress a strong rule-following identity by stimulating street-level bureaucrats' internal sense of control.We furthermore expect that this relation is stronger for women bureaucrats and bureaucrats who hold a positive attitude to clients. Contrary to expectations, survey data (n = 1407) show that this identity strengthens as general self-efficacy beliefs increase. Gender and attitude to clients do not affect this relationship. These findings suggest that rule-following identity reflects street-level bureaucrats' confidence in their abilities to work complex rule sets to fulfill task requirements, rather than desire for control or to reduce insecurity.

The Effect of Perceived Workplace Bureaucracies on Self-Evaluated Efficacy, Job Satisfaction and Motivation in the Workplace during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…It is directly tied to the quality of work-life (Mensah & Lebbaeus, 2013) and performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). While Abun (2021) did not find a relationship between self-efficacy and bureaucracy, Keulemans (2021) found that rule-following identity (common in bureaucratic organisations) increased general selfefficacy. On the other hand, Mustafa et al (2019) found that high formalisation and centralisation diminished self-efficacy while red tape lowered self-efficacy due to emo-tional exhaustion in employees (Baker et al, 2007;Yang et al, 2018) with its lack of flexi-bility and opportunities for creativity and innovation (Jaussi et al, 2007).…”

“…Investigations on bureaucratic organisations (Abun, 2021;Langer et al, 2017;Keulemans, 2021), defined as an organisation where routine operations adhere to strict rules and procedures (Hodson et al, 2006), showed that such organisations increased employee performance (Abun, 2021) while others showed that they decreased employees' satisfaction (Langer et al, 2017), productivity (Feeney & DeHart-Davis L, 2009) and job motivation (Lam &Lambermont-Ford,2010).…”

“…In more recent studies, bureaucratic work organisations were shown to be slow and labo-rious (Mengistu & Vogel, 2003), defeating the primary purpose of reaching maximum productivity. Nonetheless, Keulemans (2021) found that street-level bureaucrats have increased confidence and Arfat et al (2017) revealed that a bureaucratic work environment strengthened work engagement and leadership. Since the strict rules were usually applied to all employees, the environment appeared fair; thereby encouraging a positive organisa-tional culture for better satisfaction as well as productivity while reducing workplace bul-lying (Hodson et al, 2006).…”

“…Bureaucracy is thereby a double-edged sword where the positive impact on employees (Keulemans, 2021;Arfat et al, 2017;Hodson et al, 2006) was contradicted in less satisfied employees (Langer et al, 2017;Gautam, 2020), less motivated employees (Prender-gast, 2007;Abun, 2021), increased burnout (Gunderman & Lynch, 2018) and decreased innovation (Langer et al, 2017). Given the tendency for bureaucratic work environments to be coercive and highly formal, freedom, autonomy, and flexibility (Adler & Borys, 1996) were perceived to be reduced with varying effects across organisations.…”

“It's Like Being a Parent at Work”: Antiviolence Frontline Work, Boundaries, and Intimacy During COVID-19

“…If a service provider has a different view of their own self-efficacy, especially under what Brodkin (2021) describes as the “external shock” of COVID-19 on street-level organizations (p. 18) and pandemic-era distancing, their encounters with clients will change across a variety of contexts. Decreased self-efficacy might push some service providers to lean more on rule-following to grasp onto some control in the face of extremity or inequity (Portillo, 2010); conversely, using Keulemans’s (2021) recent survey of Dutch and Belgian tax auditors, others may engage in less rule-following due to a lack of self-confidence in understanding and applying normative frameworks. Similarly, Møller's (2021) public service participants disclosed how their “reduced situational knowledge made them insecure and in doubt about how to make the best professional judgement (and decision) in the encounter with families and citizens” (p. 97).…”