Becoming Bureaucrats: Socialization at the Front Lines of Government Service

Chapter 6. Bureaucratic Identity: Rules and Loyalty

Chapter 6 Bureaucratic Identity: Rules and Loyalty After two years on the force, Phillip, a white police officer who had previously served in the armed forces, described his approach to policing: “You gotta have a dual personality like you’ll know when the good, honest, hardworking people you’re dealing with, and I treat them like a good, honest person should be treated. But when I’m dealing with a crackhead, or if I’m dealing with somebody that I just locked up for something else, they’re usually a bunch of assholes and so you tend to be an asshole to them too.” Phillip’s comments align nicely with the logic of appropriateness theory put forward by March and Olsen and suggest that understanding the actions of government officials requires grappling with their bureaucratic identities—the internal self-conceptions that they have about themselves as organization members. One of the goals of this book is to understand how such identities are formed. Some studies imply that workers bring their identities with them into their organizations (DeHart-Davis 2007; Kaufman 1960; O’Leary 2010; Portillo and DeHart-Davis 2009; Selden, Brudney, and Kellough 1998), while others suggest that they are built inside organizations (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2003; Van Maanen 1975; Wilkins and Williams 2008). This chapter brings evidence to bear on these competing expectations by studying how police officers and welfare caseworkers developed their bureaucratic identities during their first two years on the job. It analyzes entrants’general bureaucratic identities as well as their rule-following identities—their understanding of themselves vis-à-vis their organization’s rules. In addition, the chapter asks about loyalty, the level of allegiance that entrants felt toward their organizations. In short, the chapter shows evidence of change and continuity. Both sets of entrants shifted toward greater acceptance of discretion use and maintained their entering levels of loyalty to their departments. The main finding from the chapter’s 114 Chapter 6 statistical analysis is that police and caseworker entrants remained strongly connected to the identities that they articulated at entry. Police Officers’ Bureaucratic Identities Interviews In my initial interviews, police discussed how they expected to act when they graduated from the academy and started work on the streets. The main theme from these conversations was that they envisioned themselves as authoritative professionals who would command respect. Commanding respect required having a good sense of right and wrong and being confident in your decisions. Essentially, cadets expected that they would enter difficult situations and would need to assert themselves. However, they recognized the limits of their authority: even though they would have power, and needed to show themselves as powerful, they also expected to act properly and show the public that they did not misuse their authority . Indeed, some indicated seeing themselves as merely the first step in the criminal justice system. For instance, David commented, “It’s really not up to me to determine if a criminal goes to jail for ten years. That’s up to the court system. It’s up to me, though, to take that person into custody.” As these comments suggest, entrants were conscious of their power and intended to use it. However, they did not see themselves as all-powerful. The initial interviews also revealed that there were some differences across the group. Some entrants expected to be open and collaborative. To them, the goal was not to be a “bad ass,” Rambo-type officer who was rough and brusque with people. Rather, they wanted to be “public servants” whom someone could approach with a problem; by not being a robot, they could show people that they cared. Other officers envisioned themselves as imperious figures whose authority would not be challenged. To these officers, interactions with the public were not an opportunity for dialogue but moments when police should impose their will. Those who were honest and cooperative may get a break, but the dishonest, argumentative, and disrespectful would not. Another theme in these first interviews was that being a police officer meant walking a fine line between passivity and aggression. An officer who was too passive would get disrespected on the street, but an officer who was too aggressive would provoke fights and inflame already difficult situations. For instance, Reggie commented, Bureaucratic Identity 115 You can’t go out there and be overly aggressive. But at the same time you can’t be passive. If the...