“I have learned my lesson”: How clients' trust betrayals shape the future ways in which street-level bureaucrats cope with their clients
Corresponding Author
Maayan Davidovitz
Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Correspondence
Maayan Davidovitz, Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Abba Khoushy Ave 199, Haifa, Israel.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorNissim Cohen
Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Maayan Davidovitz
Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Correspondence
Maayan Davidovitz, Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Abba Khoushy Ave 199, Haifa, Israel.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorNissim Cohen
Department of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
enTrust betrayal is a subjective feeling of a street-level bureaucrat (SLB) that a client acted contrary to expectations, diminishing the former's belief in the latter's good intentions. How do SLBs experience a betrayal of trust by clients? How do such betrayals shape the future ways in which SLBs cope with clients? We investigate these questions empirically using semi-structured, in-depth interviews and focus groups with Israeli social service providers. The findings reveal four types of client trust betrayal: integrity-based, previous impression-based, legitimate behavior-based, and category-based. We identify five strategies SLBs employ to cope with clients following such betrayals. With specific clients who betrayed their trust, they adopt minimal, formal, and guarded behavior; they satisfy the client's demands; they sever the relationship with the client entirely. With future clients, they exhibit careful, less “naïve” behavior and adopt a boundary-setting approach. The negative implications for public service delivery may be far-reaching.
Abstract
arתקציר
בגידה באמון היא תחושה סובייקטיבית של בירוקרט ברמת הרחוב כי הלקוח פעל בניגוד לציפיותיו המוקדמות, דבר שהפחית את אמונת הראשון בכוונותיו הטובות של האחרון. כיצד בירוקרטים ברמת הרחוב חווים בגידה באמון מצד לקוחות? כיצד בגידות אלה מעצבות את דרכי ההתמודדות העתידיות שמאמצים בירוקרטים ברמת הרחוב עם לקוחות? אנו חוקרים שאלות אלה באופן אמפירי באמצעות ראיונות עומק חצי-מובנים וקבוצות מיקוד עם ספקי שירותים חברתיים ישראליים. הממצאים חושפים ארבעה סוגים של בגידה באמון מצד לקוחות: בגידה מבוססת יושרה, בגידה מבוססת רושם קודם, בגידה בהתנהגות לגיטימית ובגידה מבוססת קטגוריה. אנו מזהים חמש אסטרטגיות שבירוקרטים ברמת הרחוב מאמצים בכדי להתמודד עם לקוחות בעקבות בגידות אלה. עם לקוחות ספציפיים שבגדו באמונם, הם מאמצים התנהגות מינימלית, רשמית ושמורה; הם מספקים את דרישות הלקוח; הם מנתקים את הקשר עם הלקוח לצמיתות. עם לקוחות עתידים הם מגלים התנהגות זהירה ופחות "נאיבית" ונוקטים בגישה של הצבת גבולות. ההשלכות השליליות של התופעה על אספקת השירות הציבורי עשויות להיות מרחיקות לכת.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Research data are not shared.
REFERENCES
- Belabas, W. & Gerrits, L. (2017) Going the extra mile? How street-level bureaucrats deal with the integration of immigrants. Social Policy & Administration, 51(1), 133–150.
- de Boer, N. (2020) How do citizens assess street-level bureaucrats' warmth and competence? A typology and test. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 532–542.
- Bouckaert, G. (2012) Trust and public administration. Administration, 60(1), 91–115.
- Brodkin, E.Z. (2012) Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940–949.
- Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Chen, C.-A., Hsieh, C.-W. & Chen, D.-Y. (2014) Fostering public service motivation through workplace trust: evidence from public managers in Taiwan. Public Administration, 92(4), 954–973.
- Cohen, N. (2018) How culture affects street-level bureaucrats' bending the rules in the context of informal payments for health care: the Israeli case. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(2), 175–187.
- Cohen, N. & Gershgoren, S. (2016) The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments. Administration & Society, 48(3), 267–289.
- Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. & LePine, J.A. (2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.
- Davidovitz, M. & Cohen, N. (2020) Playing defence: the impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532
- Davidovitz, M. & Cohen, N. (2021a) Politicians' involvement in street-level policy implementation: implications for social equity. Public Policy and Administration, 095207672110240. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767211024033
- Davidovitz, M. & Cohen, N. (2021b) Alone in the campaign: distrust in regulators and the coping of front-line workers. Regulation & Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12396
- Davidovitz, M. & Cohen, N. (2021c) Frontline social service as a battlefield: insights from street-level bureaucrats' interactions with violent clients. Social Policy & Administration.
- Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Destler, K.N. (2017) A matter of trust: street level bureaucrats, organizational climate and performance management reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 517–534.
- Deutsch, M. (1958) Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265–279.
10.1177/002200275800200401 Google Scholar
- Dirks, K.T. (1999) The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.
- Eikenaar, T., de Rijk, A.E. & Meershoek, A. (2016) What's in a frame? How professionals assess clients in Dutch work reintegration practice. Social Policy & Administration, 50(7), 767–786.
- Elangovan, A.R. & Shapiro, D.L. (1998) Betrayal of trust in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 547–566.
- Finkel, E.J., Rusbult, C.E., Kumashiro, M. & Hannon, P.A. (2002) Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956–974.
- Finlay, S. & Sandall, J. (2009) “Someone's rooting for you”: continuity, advocacy and street-level bureaucracy in UK maternal healthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 69(8), 1228–1235.
- Fleming, C.J. (2020) Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: the roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1191–1216.
- Fuertes, V. & Lindsay, C. (2016) Personalization and street-level practice in activation: the case of the UK's work programme. Public Administration, 94(2), 526–541.
- Fulmer, C.A. & Gelfand, M.J. (2012) At what level (and in whom) we trust: trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230.
- Gofen, A. (2014) Mind the gap: dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493.
- Grimmelikhuijsen, S. & Knies, E. (2017) Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601.
- Haden, S.C. & Hojjat, M. (2006) Aggressive responses to betrayal: type of relationship, victim's sex, and nature of aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 101–116.
- Hardin, R. (2013) Government without trust. Journal of Trust Research, 3(1), 32–52.
10.1080/21515581.2013.771502 Google Scholar
- Harrits, G.S. (2019) Stereotypes in context: how and when do SLBs use class stereotypes? Public Administration Review, 79(1), 93–103.
- Hupe, P. & Hill, M. (2007) Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.
- Jensen, D.C. & Pedersen, L.B. (2017) The impact of empathy—explaining diversity in street-level decision-making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 433–449.
- Joskowicz-Jabloner, L. & Leiser, D. (2013) Varieties of trust-betrayal: emotion and relief patterns in different domains. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(9), 1799–1813.
- Keiser, L.R. (2010) Understanding SLBs' decision making: determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.
- Keulemans, S. & Van de Walle, S. (2020) Understanding SLBs' attitude towards clients: towards a measurement instrument. Public Policy and Administration, 35(1), 84–113.
- Kim, S. (2010) Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: does the rise of critical citizens matter? Public Administration Review, 70(5), 801–810.
- Lavee, E. & Strier, R. (2019) Transferring emotional capital as coerced discretion: SLBs reconciling structural deficiencies. Public Administration, 97(4), 910–925.
- Lavee, E., Cohen, N. & Nouman, H. (2018) Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in street-level bureaucrats' engagement in policy design. Public Administration, 96(2), 333–348.
- Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer: Springer Publishing Company.
- Levi, M. & Stoker, L. (2000) Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475–507.
- Lewicki, R.J. & Wiethoff, C. (2006) Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In: The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice, pp. 92–119. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
- Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. & Bies, R.J. (1998) Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.
- Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-level bureaucracy, 30th anniversary edition: dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
- Lumineau, F.. (2017) How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of management, 43(5), 1553–1577.
- Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
- Maynard-Moody, S. & Musheno, M. (2000) State agent or citizen agent: two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272 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.
10.3998/mpub.11924 Google Scholar
- McKnight, D.H., Kacmar, C.J. & Choudhury, V. (2004) Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk internet expert advice site perceptions. E-Service Journal, 3(2), 35–58.
10.2979/esj.2004.3.2.35 Google Scholar
- Mourtgos, S.M., Mayer, R.C., Wise, R.A. & O'Rourke, H. (2020) The overlooked perspective of police trust in the public: measurement and effects on police job behaviors. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(5), 639–672.
10.1177/0887403419851850 Google Scholar
- Newton, K., Stolle, D. & Zmerli, S. (2018) Social and political trust. The Oxford handbook of social and political trust, 37, 961–976.
- Petrocchi, S., Iannello, P., Lecciso, F., Levante, A., Antonietti, A. & Schulz, P.J. (2019) Interpersonal trust in doctor-patient relation: evidence from dyadic analysis and association with quality of dyadic communication. Social Science & Medicine, 235, 112391.
- Raaphorst, N. & Van de Walle, S. (2018) A signaling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: how public officials interpret signals and cues. Social Policy & Administration, 52(7), 1367–1378.
- Reina, D.S. & Reina, M.L. (1999) Trust and betrayal in the workplace. Building effective relationships in your organization. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Reina, D.S. & Reina, M.L. (2006) Trust and betrayal in the workplace: Building effective relationships in your organization. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Rushton, C.H., Reina, M.L., Francovich, C., Naumann, P. & Reina, D.S. (2010) Application of the reina trust and betrayal model to the experience of pediatric critical care clinicians. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(4), e41–e51.
- Senghaas, M., Freier, C. & Kupka, P. (2019) Practices of activation in frontline interactions: coercion, persuasion, and the role of trust in activation policies in Germany. Social Policy & Administration, 53(5), 613–626.
- Serva, M.A., Fuller, M.A. & Mayer, R.C. (2005) The reciprocal nature of trust: a longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6), 625–648.
- D. Silverman (Ed.). (2020) Qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
- Spreitzer, G.M. & Mishra, A.K. (1999) Giving up control without losing control: trust and its substitutes' effects on managers' involving employees in decision making. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 155–187.
- Tummers, L. & Bekkers, V. (2014) Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.
- Tummers, L.L.G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. & Musheno, M. (2015) Coping during public service delivery: a conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126.
- Van de Walle, S. (2017) Trust in public administration and public services. In European Commission (Ed.), Trust at risk: Implications for EU policies and institutions (Chap. 7, pp. 118–128). Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
- Wang, X. & Wart, M.W. (2007) When public participation in administration leads to trust: an empirical assessment of managers' perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265–278.
- Ward, P. (2018) Trust and communication in a doctor-patient relationship: a literature review. Arch Med, 3(3), 36.
- Yang, K. (2005) Public administrators' trust in citizens: a missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273–285.
- Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. & Perrone, V. (1998) Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159.
