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

References

• Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. doi:10.2307/258189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 1–70). Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437. doi:10.2307/2393374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baviskar, S., & Winter, S. C. (2017). Street-level bureaucrats as individual policymakers: The relationship between attitudes and coping behavior toward vulnerable children and youth. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 316–338. doi:10.1080/10967494.2016.1235641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belastingdienst. (2016). Controleaanpak Belastingdienst (CAB): De CAB en zijn modellen toegepast in toezicht. Retrieved from https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/themaoverstijgend/brochures_en_publicaties/controleaanpak_belastingdienst
   Google Scholar
• Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345–381. doi:10.1177/014920639101700205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees’ use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813–845. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. (1956). Bureaucracy in modern society. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. (1960). Orientation toward clients in a public welfare agency. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(3), 341–361. doi:10.2307/2390661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191–1205. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruhn, A. (2009). Occupational unity or diversity in a changing work context? The case of Swedish labour inspectors. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 7(2), 31–23. doi:10.1080/14774003.2009.11667733
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. W. (2016). A collaboration-based model of work motivation and role-ambiguity in public organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(3), 655–675. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1137763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88. doi:10.1177/104649640003100104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, N., & Gershgoren, S. (2016). The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments. Administration & Society, 48(3), 267–289. doi:10.1177/0095399712473984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelen, U., De Peuter, S., Victoir, A., Van Diest, I., & Van den Bergh, O. (2006). Verdere validering van de Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) en vergelijking van twee Nederlandstalige versies. Gedrag en Gezondheid, 34(2), 61–70.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6(2), 309–318. doi:10.5465/amr.1981.4287859
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n roll (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Foldy, E. G., & Buckley, T. R. (2010). Recreating street-level practice: The role of routines, work groups, and team learning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 23–52. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gofen, A., Sella, S., & Gassner, D. (2019). Levels of analysis in street-level bureaucracy research. In P. Hupe (Ed.), Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context (pp. 336–350). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, A., Țiclău, T., & Balica, D. (2018). Perceptions of discretion in street-level public service: Examining administrative governance in Romania. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(3), 620–647. doi:10.1080/15309576.2017.1400987
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himmelfarb, S. (1993). The measurement of attitudes. In A. H. Eagly & Chaiken, S. (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes (pp. 23–88). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höijer, B. (2011). Social representation theory. Nordicom Review, 32(2), 3–16. doi:10.1515/nor-2017-0109
   Google Scholar
• Hurst, C., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Livingston, B. (2012). The odd one out: How newcomers who are different become adjusted. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization (pp. 115–138). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kallio, J., Blomberg, H., & Kroll, C. (2013). Social workers’ attitudes towards the unemployed in the Nordic countries. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(2), 219–229. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2012.00891.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02131.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keulemans, S., & Groeneveld, S. (2019). Supervisory leadership at the frontlines: Street-level discretion, supervisor influence, and street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/jopart/muz019
   Google Scholar
• Keulemans, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients: Towards a measurement instrument. Public Policy and Administration. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0952076718789749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437. doi:10.1177/014920639402000206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroeger, N. (1975). Bureaucracy, social exchange, and benefits received in a public assistance agency. Social Problems, 23(2), 182–196. doi:10.2307/799655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahlou, S. (1996). The propagation of social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26(2), 157–175. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1996.tb00527.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Maio, G. R., & Haddock, G. (2015). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Maroulis, S. (2017). The role of social network structure in street-level innovation. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(4), 419–430. doi:10.1177/0275074015611745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, E. J., & Rice, A. K. (1967). Systems of organizations: The control of task and sentient boundaries. London, UK: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2006). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In R. L. Moreland & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Small groups. Key readings (pp. 469–498). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 173–183. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes toward a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211–250. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyson, S., Raaphorst, N., Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Organizational socialization in public administration research: A systematic review and directions for future research. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 610–627. doi:10.1177/0275074017696160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberfield, Z. (2014). Becoming bureaucrats. Socialization at the front Lines of government service. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oberfield, Z. (2019). Change and stability in public workforce development: A 10-year study of new officers in an urban police department. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1753. doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1571276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottati, V., Edwards, J., & Krumdick, N. D. (2005). Attitude theory and research: Intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary connections. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 707–742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raaphorst, N. J. (2017). Uncertainty in bureaucracy: Toward a sociological understanding of frontline decision making (Doctoral dissertation). Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 729–756. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289
   Google Scholar
• Siciliano, M. D. (2017). Professional networks and street-level performance: How public school teachers’ advice networks influence student performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 79–101. doi:10.1177/0275074015577110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237. doi:10.2307/2695870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, C. N. (1981). Attitudinal tendencies among officials. In C. T. Goodsell (Ed.), The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet (pp. 43–68). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations, and leadership. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 25–66). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wanberg, C. R. (2012). Facilitating organizational socialization: An introduction. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 3–7). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, B. M., & Barker, J. R. (2000). Assessing concertive control in the term environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 345–361. doi:10.1348/096317900167065
   Google Scholar
• Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar