Policy Positions of Bureaucrats at the Front Lines: Are They Susceptible to Strategic Communication?

• Author: Morten Jakobsen,Simon Calmar Andersen
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12584
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017

Policy Positions of Bureaucrats at the Front Lines: Are They Susceptible to Strategic Communication? 57

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 1, pp. 57–66. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12584.

Morten Jakobsen is associate professor

in the Department of Political Science

and Government, Aarhus University,

Denmark. His research interests include

citizen–state interactions, public employees,

communication in bureaucracy, and political

participation. He has published in leading

public administration journals, including

Public Administration Review, Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory,

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,

and

International Public Management

Journal.

E-mail: mortenj@ps.au.dk

Simon Calmar Andersen is professor

in the Department of Political Science and

Government, Aarhus University, Denmark,

and leader of TrygFonden ’ s Centre for

Child Research. He serves on the Advisory

Research Board of the Danish National

Centre for Social Research, the International

Advisory Board for the Public Management

Evidence Lab, City University of Hong Kong,

and the board of directors of the Danish

Evaluation Institute.

E-mail: simon@ps.au.dk

Abstract : It is well established that bureaucrats’ implementation of policies is influenced by their own policy positions,

that is, their attitudes toward the given policies. However, what affects the policy positions of bureaucrats? This article

focuses on whether the policy positions of bureaucrats at the front lines of government are susceptible to frames and cues

embedded in communication. Based on the notion that bureaucrats often adhere to certain professional norms when

developing their attitudes toward policies, the authors hypothesize that communication frames and cues that align

policies with such norms move bureaucrats’ policy positions in favor of the policy. Results of four studies in European and

American settings among mid- and street-level bureaucrats show support for the hypothesized effect. They also show that

aligning policies with dimensions outside professional norms is ineffective, possibly even producing opposite effects.

Practitioner Points

• The way a new policy is presented to street-level bureaucrats and middle managers directly affects their

attitudes toward the policy.

• Emphasizing aspects of the policy that are in accordance with professional norms of serving clients and

building policies on research-based evidence are likely to make bureaucrats more sympathetic—or less

negative—toward the policy.

• Emphasizing other considerations such as client satisfaction surveys and economic concerns may cause

bureaucrats to be more hostile toward the policy.

• Managers and other decision makers must strategically consider how they communicate about new programs

and policies.

T he implementation of policies by street-level

bureaucrats is deeply affected by their own

positions on the policy issues in question (i.e.,

their attitudes toward the given policies). This insight

dates back to classic studies by Kaufman ( 1960 ) and

Lipsky ( 1980 ) and has been confirmed by a number

of more recent studies (Brehm and Gates 1997 ; Keiser

and Soss 1998 ; May and Winter 2009 ; Stensöta 2012 :

Tummers et al. 2012 ). This poses a fundamental

question about what affects the policy positions of

bureaucrats. Bureaucrats arrive at their jobs with

experiences and individual personality traits, which

are likely to influence them throughout their work

life. They are also affected by long-term socialization

and organizational influences in various ways after

they are recruited for their job (Oberfield 2010 ).

However, much less is known about how bureaucrats’

policy positions, that is, their attitudes toward specific

policies and programs, are influenced by strategic

communication emphasizing different perspectives.

In this article, we center on whether “frames” and

“cues” embedded in communication affect the policy

positions of bureaucrats working at the front lines of

government. Framing refers to emphasizing one subset

of considerations rather than others when describing

an object, for example, emphasizing a certain aspect of

a policy. A cue is a piece of information (e.g., expert

advice) that enables individuals to make simplified

evaluations without analyzing extensive information

(Druckman et al. 2010 ). Communication is an

inevitable part of organizations, and it surrounds

every policy implemented by bureaucrats. From

extensive research on public opinion formation in

political science, we know that the attitudes of citizens

toward a policy are susceptible to the way that policy

is communicated. Communication impacts attitudes

in terms of how policies are framed as well as by cues

allowing citizens to form opinions based on smaller

pieces of information (Druckman et al. 2010 ; Nelson,

Oxley, and Clawson 1997 ).

Based on the notion that bureaucrats often adhere

to certain professional norms when developing

their attitudes toward policies, we hypothesize that

communication that aligns policies with such norms

Simon Calmar Andersen

Morten Jakobsen

Aarhus University, Denmark

Policy Positions of Bureaucrats at the Front Lines:

Are They Susceptible to Strategic Communication?