Measuring bureaucratic reputation: Scale development and validation

Abstract

Despite growing interest in bureaucratic reputation as a theoretical construct, the field lacks a standardized measure that can be used in surveys to capture individual‐level variation in the reputation judgments of citizens and other audiences. The aim of this article, therefore, is to develop a standardized, individual‐level measure of bureaucratic reputation based on the conceptual definition provided by Carpenter (). Employing feedback from experts and data from a survey of over 300 U.S. citizens, this article develops and tests a unidimensional scale of bureaucratic reputation, representing the content domains of performance, morality, procedural fairness, technical competence, and general reputation. Results suggest that our proposed bureaucratic reputation scale (BRS) has good internal reliability and that it is positively associated with support for autonomy, budget, and power, which provides evidence of criterion validity. Potential uses of the scale to study bureaucratic reputation are discussed.

A Multidimensional Reputation Barometer for Public Agencies: A Validated Instrument

“…While most authors studying reputation in the public sector draw on Carpenter's definition, and a coherent body of work is developing as a result, some conceptual departures from this are also emerging. For instance, some authors have emphasized the relevance of additional dimensions emerging from empirical work: Salomonsen, Verhoest, and Boye () identify the relevance of a processual dimension of reputation, in addition to the four dimensions discussed earlier; Lee and Van Ryzin () compile all of the dimensions into a single measurement with a high reported internal consistency; and Capelos et al () speak of two reputational components: a reputation for efficacy and for morality . Given the prevalence and influence of Carpenter's theoretical framework, however, in the development of our scale, we explicitly set out to identify and measure the four dimensions of reputation as identified in his work.…”

“…For each of the four dimensions, the authors formulated about 10 statements, which were intended to tap into the latent construct. In comparison with the work of previous scholars, including Ponzi, Fombrun, and Gardberg () and Lee and Van Ryzin (), we formulated items that would ideally relate to a single dimension, rather than to an overall reputation, which were subsequently tested. Table presents the initial pool of 41 items, which were presented to respondents in random order.…”

“…Important steps have been made toward developing a public sector scale. Lee and Van Ryzin () developed a reliable measure for reputation by surveying citizens about three public agencies. Interestingly, the authors do not empirically find the separate dimensions predicted by Carpenter (), but they do find a measure with high internal consistency that does not discriminate among the different dimensions of reputation.…”

A reputation for what, to whom, and in which task environment: A commentary

“…It also includes the idea of concern for public well‐being and protection of interests of constituents. Finally, the procedural dimension relates to the justness of procedures (although Lee & Van Ryzin 2018 seem to have a slightly different take on this).…”

Bureaucratic locus of control

“…By doing this we hope to capture the perceptions of bureaucrats on their role, their organization and the degree of control they have in determining how they fit into it. This exercise contributes to an expanding literature that designs microlevel measures of characteristics of bureaucracy (Bussell, 2017; Lee & Van Ryzin, 2018; Trondal, Murdoch, & Geys, 2017). It builds an empirical tool to investigate aspects of bureaucratic control at the individual level.…”