Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Attitude toward Clients: A Study of Work Group Influence in the Dutch and Belgian Tax Administration

Abstract

Classic street-level bureaucracy literature has suggested that individual bureaucrats are shaped by their work group. Work group colleagues can impact how bureaucrats perceive clients and how they behave toward them. Building on theories of work group socialization, social representation, and social identification, we investigate if and how the attitude of individual street-level bureaucrats toward clients is shaped by the client-attitude of the bureaucrat's work group colleagues. We also test whether this relation is dependent on conditions of attitudinal homogeneity and perceived cohesion of the work group. Results of a survey among street-level bureaucrats in the Dutch and Belgian tax administration (1245 respondents from 210 work groups) suggest that different mechanisms underlie the work group's impact on the individual street-level bureaucrat in this specific attitude. The analysis furthermore reveals that work groups have a limited impact on the individual's client-attitude. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

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

“…The high average general self-efficacy among the bureaucrats in this study alludes to such self-selection effects being in order (cf. Keulemans & Van de Walle, 2020a;Oberfield, 2019). Self-selection can cancel out gender differences upon entering street-level bureaucracy (Nielsen, 2015).…”

“…Data were collected from frontline tax bureaucrats whose work practice is characterized by relatively high levels of rule density and complexity. However, any potential bias that may originate from selecting this context is likely to be offset by current policy developments in these street-level bureaucracies: the Dutch and Belgian tax administrations employ a tax philosophy of horizontal control that has entailed a move away from an emphasis on strict rule adherence, toward a more trust-based approach (Keulemans, 2020;Keulemans & Van de Walle, 2020a).…”

“…Those low in selfefficacy may be less likely to enter this demanding work setting and more likely to be lost to attrition. This highlights that recruiters should pay careful attention to who they hire and try to be aware of the dispositions that new recruits bring with them into bureaucracy (Keulemans, 2020;Keulemans & Van de Walle, 2020a). That such dispositions are unlikely to change substantially after organizational entry underlines the importance of this (cf.…”

Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Social Value OrientationOn and OffDuty

“…However, the implementation literature is not unequivocal in this case. Recent studies have found that the work group has a “modest impact” on street‐level bureaucrats’ attitudes toward citizens (Keulemans and Van de Walle ). Similarly, a recent 10‐year study of police officers indicated that the attitudes of new recruits are hardly altered by post‐entry organizational forces, directing attention to the influence of their dispositional, pre‐entry attitudes (Oberfield ).…”

Frontline social service as a battlefield: Insights from street‐level bureaucrats' interactions with violent clients

“…The day‐to‐day exchanges between the parties create a fertile ground for establishing a personal and emotional commitment (Lavee & Strier, 2019; Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2000), as well as reciprocal trust, which affects the implementation of policy (Davidovitz & Cohen, 2020). SLBs may decide on how to distribute social resources to clients based on their perceptions of them and attitudes towards them (Baviskar & Winter, 2017; Keulemans & Van Walle, 2020; Raaphorst & Van de Walle, 2018; Watkins‐Hayes, 2009).…”