Notes
notes Chapter 1. Bureaucratic Socialization 1. The term “bureaucrat” refers to an employee of a bureaucracy—an administrative agency of government (Plano and Greenberg 1985; Safire 1978; Smith and Zurcher 1949). The term need not apply solely to government agencies; however, that is how it is generally understood. 2. This definition borrows from Wanberg (2012a, 17) and others in the organizational socialization (OS) literature. The main difference is that the OS literature focuses on the general process of organizational entry, whereas this book focuses exclusively on entry into public organizations. Though this distinction is one of degree and not kind, it is important because public and private organizations are subject to different types of political and economic pressures (Bozeman 2004; Meier and O’Toole 2011; Perry and Rainey 1988). At times, the term “bureaucratic development” will be used synonymously with “bureaucratic socialization.” 3. As discussed below, there are a variety of studies in the organizational socialization literature that take a longitudinal approach to development. Although these studies are informative , they tend to focus on private-sector workers, a narrow range of outcomes (like satisfaction and productivity), and short periods of time. There are also a few recent works that have tried to understand bureaucratic motivation over time (see, for example, Kjeldsen and Jacobsen 2012). 4. There is some overlap between this term and “professional identity” (Watkins-Hayes 2009). However, “bureaucratic identity” is preferable for this study since it directs attention more precisely to the organization in which workers operate rather than their broader set of professional commitments. 5. Arguing that bureaucrats use their attitudes to understand situations and decide how to respond does not imply that their attitudes are deterministically linked to behavior. Rather, as per the LOA, attitudes should be understood as one important psychological factor that has the potential to influence how bureaucrats behave. 6. For exceptions, see Fielding (1988), Rubinstein (1973), Teahan (1975), and Van Maanen (1974, 1975). 7. As discussed in Appendix A, at the time of the study, few welfare caseworkers were 212 Notes to Pages 16–55 trained social workers. As such, readers should understand that the term “caseworker” is not used as a synonym for “social worker.” 8. Though these workers differ in obvious and important ways, they share much in common and have been referred to as “paradigmatic” and “archetypal” street-level bureaucrats (Brehm and Gates 1997; Maynard-Moody and Portillo 2010). See Appendix A for an overview of the similarities and differences between these two cases. 9. See Appendix A for an overview of how these research methods were used to gather the data analyzed in this book. In addition, Appendix A contains a description of how I gained access to these two populations. All personal names used in connection with interviews that I conducted for this book are pseudonyms. 10. See Appendix A for a discussion of the limitations of this research design. Chapter 2. Dispositions and Institutions 1. Van Maanen is quoting from Ahern (1972). 2. Although impressionability may reemerge in advanced age, such concerns are beyond the scope of this book since few bureaucratic entrants are elderly. 3. Although training need not refer only to the period in which entrants encounter their organizations for the first time, this is the type of training discussed here. These types of training are sometimes referred to as “orientation programs” in the organizational socialization literature (Saks and Gruman 2012). 4. Subsequent studies have depicted a more positive view of institutionalized tactics: they may be associated with less role ambiguity, role conflict, and turnover intent and better job satisfaction and performance (Saks and Gruman 2012). 5. For information about modeling, see Appendix C. 6. For information about operationalization of institutional variables, see Appendix C. Chapter 3. The Long View 1. This survey was fielded in 2001 and was funded by the Rockefeller Institute for Government; it analyzed welfare systems in four states: Michigan, New York, Georgia, and Texas. The survey mainly focused on public welfare caseworkers but also included nonpublic welfare-to-work workers. Since my study focuses on public welfare caseworkers, all data presented focus only on public workers. 2. Sanctioning is an act in which part or all of an individual’s welfare grant is reduced as a penalty for not following agency rules. 3. Many of the questions set up five-point Likert-type responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” For the purposes of this analysis I collapsed the “agree” and “strongly agree” categories as well as the...
OR
Buy This Book in Print