Does Core Task Matter for Decision-Making? A Comparative Case Study on Whether Differences in Job Characteristics Affect Discretionary Street-Level Decision-Making
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0095399715609383 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Article
Administration & Society
2018, Vol. 50(8) 1125 –1147
Does Core Task Matter
© The Author(s) 2015
Article reuse guidelines:
for Decision-Making? A
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0095399715609383
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Comparative Case Study
on Whether Differences in
Job Characteristics Affect
Discretionary Street-Level
Decision-Making
Didde Cramer Jensen1
Abstract
This article sets out to test the hypothesis that differences in fundamental
job characteristics (service vs. regulation) affect discretionary street-
level decision-making. The hypothesis was tested by examining whether
systematic variation could be found in the moral assessments on which
street-level bureaucrats performing different types of core tasks base their
decisions. The issue was addressed in a comparative case study comprising
three institutions, which differ systematically as far as variables of tasks
are concerned. Findings showed that differences in core tasks do affect
discretionary decision-making, as divergent moral assessments determine
and justify decision-making across different core tasks.
Keywords
street-level bureaucracy, discretionary decision-making, moral assessment,
organizational core task, comparative case study
1Aarhus University, Denmark
Corresponding Author:
Didde Cramer Jensen, Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research, Department of Psychology and
Behavioural Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, Bartholins Allé 10, Bygning 1322,
Aarhus 8000, Denmark.
Email: dcj.crf@psy.au.dk
1126
Administration & Society 50(8)
Introduction
Discretion is an inherent characteristic of street-level decision-making, as
rules and procedures can never universally fit each specific case and cir-
cumstance (Evans & Harris, 2004). Consequently, decisions concerning
beneficiaries are anchored in a moral context that is seldom made explicit
(Hasenfeld, 1992, 2000; Lipsky, 2010, p. 145). Eligibility, culpability, and
suitability for bureaucratic intervention must all be determined, which
requires considerable discretion on the part of street-level personnel that
cannot be reduced to official guidelines (Hasenfeld, 1992, p. 6; Hasenfeld,
2000, p. 329; Katz, 1975, p. 1378; Lipsky, 2010, pp. 60, 69, 105, 106, 161;
Roth, 1972, p. 885). More than merely transforming policy into practice,
street-level bureaucrats enforce norms and values (Maynard-Moody &
Musheno, 2000, p. 335), which raises the question of accountably in street-
level decision-making. According to a fundamental norm of democratic
effectiveness, street-level bureaucrats are expected to ensure a loyal and
neutral conversion of political decisions into everyday practice. However,
more recent research has shown that street-level decisions are often guided
less by rules and procedures and more by bureaucrats’ own personal beliefs
and norms about what is considered fair (Hasenfeld, 2000; Maynard-Moody
& Musheno, 2000, 2003; Walker, 1993, pp. 10, 56, 75, 92, 128). These stud-
ies have predominantly focused on the similarities among street-level
bureaucrats performing different organizational core tasks. However, the
manner with which street-level bureaucrats handle diverse types of tasks
(with different objectives) may very well base their discretionary decisions
on diverse moral assessments,1 as divergent experiences with proper and
responsible behavior might exist in different types of job settings. While
public sector employees share characteristics in their interaction with cli-
ents and in their discretionary job functions, they are normally regarded as
a heterogeneous group performing very different tasks (Evans, 2011, p. 383;
Hasenfeld, 2000, p. 337; Hupe & Buffat, 2013, pp. 3, 5; Kallio & Kouvo,
2015, p. 331; Winter, 2002, p. 3). However, systematic research has yet to
be conducted regarding the extent to which differences in fundamental job
characteristics affect the discretionary decisions made by street-level
bureaucrats (Nielsen, 2011, pp. 347-348). In fact, only few studies have
looked into the different perspectives and commitments of different occu-
pational groups delivering public services (see, for example, Evans, 2011,
2013, 2014; Kallio & Kouvo, 2015; Keiser, 1999; P. G. Scott, 1997; Winter,
2002), which leaves a need for the identification of the factors that produce
variations in organizational practice and in the moral assessments they
enact (Evans, 2011, p. 387; Hasenfeld, 2000, p. 348).
Jensen
1127
The objective of this study is to fill this gap by examining whether system-
atic variation can be found concerning the moral assessments on which
street-level bureaucrats performing different types of core tasks base their
discretionary decisions. This article focuses on the difference between regu-
latory and service-producing organizational core tasks, as this particular divi-
sion is considered the most fundamental variation between public tasks. The
research question is examined by developing a theoretical model focused on
organizational core tasks as the explanatory variable. This model is tested by
applying it in a comparative case study comprising three Danish institu-
tions—an open prison, a drop-in center for substance abusers, and a narcotics
unit in a Danish police district—in which organization employees vary sys-
tematically according to the service and regulatory core tasks performed. The
comparative case study approach is chosen, as it is considered the most
appropriate design when investigating causal mechanisms2 rather than esti-
mating causal effects (Gerring, 2004, pp. 348-349). The study is based on a
“most similar systems design” (Gerring, 2007, p. 131), a design founded on
units of analysis that are as similar as possible in every respect with the
exception of the independent variable of interest. When this requirement is
met, the comparison is considered “controlled” and provides the functional
equivalent of an experiment (Bennet & George, 1997, p. 13). The study uses
“a pattern-matching approach” as the mode of analysis, rendering it possible
to test the causal implications of a theory, thus providing corroborating evi-
dence for a causal argument (Gerring, 2004, p. 348). According to Yin (2014,
p. 143), pattern-matching logic is “one of the most desirable techniques” for
case study analysis. To enhance confidence in the findings, the analysis
makes use of multiple sources of data and collection methods, including
observation notes, survey data, and interview recordings.
This article contributes to a greater understanding of the variations in the
discretionary decision-making made by street-level bureaucrats. The study of
fundamental job characteristics can provide valuable insight into any effect
different organizational core tasks might have on policy implementation, thus
providing a more nuanced picture of different views on ethical responses to
policy. The study is believed to be based on a solid design, which increases
the confidence in the findings.
Theoretical Framework
Defining the Dependent Variable: Moral Assessment
According to the Weberian ideal, street-level bureaucrats are expected to
make rational decisions on the basis of objective and general criteria guiding
1128
Administration & Society 50(8)
the exercise of their profession (Weber, 1946, p. 330); however, many street-
level decisions concern particular cases requiring situational adjustment
(Evans & Harris, 2004, p. 878; Rothstein, 2008, pp. 4-5; Rothstein, 2012, p. 409).
In such situations, accountability, defined as an obligation to meet prescribed
standards of behavior, becomes quite challenging. In the absence of ade-
quate performance measures and in the context of making significant judg-
ments affecting clients’ well-being, street-level bureaucrats depend heavily
on subjective assessments of the validity of their practices (Lipsky, 2010, p.
114; Wilson, 1989, p. 54). For example, consider an employee at a drug
treatment facility who must assess whether or not a client is considered
motivated for treatment, a social worker who has to decide on whether a
neglected child should be removed from its family, and a police officer
choosing which cars to pull over for sobriety testing. Such questions, ines-
capably intertwined in the policy delivery process, are not only technical,
but highly normative, and answering them involves moral assessments
(Hasenfeld, 1992, p. 6; Hasenfeld, 2000, p. 329; Katz, 1975, p. 1378; Roth,
1972, p. 885). In this way, moral assessments are practical and immediate
and concern the conduct of street-level bureaucrats in day-to-day practices.
They tie to the fundamental core occupational identity; forming a code of
ethics to aid bureaucrats when performing their duties, and as so they deter-
mine codes of conduct.
Based on the theoretical framework above, the following assumption can
be made concerning moral assessments:
Assumption 1: Moral assessments serve as the premises for street-level
decision-making.
Moral assessments, defined as the moral rationale determining and justify-
ing street-level bureaucrats’ decision-making in relation to beneficiaries,
constitute the dependent variable in this article.3 The dependent variable is
operationalized as the articulated rationale behind street-level bureaucrats’
decision-making.
Defining the Explanatory Variable: Organizational Core Task
This article rests on the claim that moral assessments...
To continue reading
Request your trial