Previous research has studied both rule- and individual-level determinants of rule abidance of frontline workers, but the effect of managerial communication has not been adequately explored. Based on extant literature on street-level bureaucracy, managerial communication, and behavioral public administration, this study develops a novel framework to theorize the relationship between managerial communication and frontline workers’ willingness to abide by frontline rules. The framework highlights that managerial communication could improve frontline workers’ willingness to abide by rules by directly monitoring their behaviors or indirectly increasing their perceived rule clarity and risk of punishment. Moreover, as organizational size increases, the effect of managerial communication on frontline workers’ willingness to abide by rules decreases. The study uses unique data from a 2018–2019 survey covering 94 frontline managers and 717 frontline workers in local security agencies in mainland China to empirically test the hypotheses.
AhmedZ.ShieldsF.WhiteR.WilbertJ. (2010). Managerial communication: The link between frontline leadership and organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 14(1), 107–120.
2.
AlbrechtH.OhlD. (2016). Exit, resistance, loyalty: Military behavior during unrest in authoritarian regimes. Perspectives on Politics, 14(1), 38–52.
3.
Alon-BarkatS.GiladS. (2017). Compensating for poor performance with promotional symbols: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(4), 661–675.
4.
AndersenS. C.JakobsenM. (2017). Policy positions of bureaucrats at the front lines: Are they susceptible to strategic communication?Public Administration Review, 77(1), 57–66.
5.
AndersonS. E.BuntaineM. T.LiuM.ZhangB. (2019). Non-governmental monitoring of local governments increases compliance with central mandates: A national-scale field experiment in China. American Journal of Political Science, 63(3), 626–643.
6.
AssadiA.LundinM. (2018). Street-level bureaucrats, rule-following, and tenure: How assessment tools are used at the front line of the public sector. Public Administration, 96(1), 154–170.
7.
BattaglioR. P.Jr.BelardinelliP.BelléN.CantarelliP. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304–320.
8.
BaviskarS.WinterS. C. (2017). Street-level bureaucrats as individual policymakers: The relationship between attitudes and coping behavior toward vulnerable children and youth. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 316–353.
9.
BellR. L.MartinJ. S. (2014). Managerial communication. Business Expert Press.
10.
BlauP. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relations in two government agencies. University of Chicago Press.
11.
BorryE. L. (2017). Ethical climate and rule bending: How organizational norms contribute to unintended rule consequences. Public Administration, 95(1), 78–96.
12.
BorryE. L.DeHart-DavisL.KaufmannW.MerrittC. C.MohrZ.TummersL. (2018). Formalization and consistency heighten organizational rule following: Experimental and survey evidence. Public Administration, 96(2), 368–385.
13.
BorryE. L.HendersonA. C. (2020). Patients, protocols, and prosocial behavior: Rule breaking in Frontline Health Care. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(1), 45–61.
14.
BrehmJ. O.GatesS. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. University of Michigan Press.
15.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. M. (2010). Explaining variation in perceptions of red tape: A Professionalism-Marketization model. Public Administration, 88(2), 418–438.
16.
BrockmannJ. (2017). Unbureaucratic behavior among street-level bureaucrats: The case of the German state police. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(4), 430–451.
17.
BrodkinE. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 2), i253–i277.
18.
BuffatA. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161.
19.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
20.
DasguptaS. A.SuarD.SinghS. (2013). Impact of managerial communication styles on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Employee Relations, 35(2), 173–199.
21.
DeChurchL. A.HillerN. J.MuraseT.DotyD.SalasE. (2010). Leadership across levels: Levels of leaders and their levels of impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1069–1085.
22.
DeHart-DavisL. (2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903.
23.
DeHart-DavisL. (2009a). Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 361–384.
24.
DeHart-DavisL. (2009b). Green tape and public employee rule abidance: Why organizational rule attributes matter. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 901–910.
25.
DeHart-DavisL. (2017). Creating effective rules in public sector organizations. Georgetown University Press.
26.
DeHart-DavisL.ChenJ.LittleT. D. (2013). Written versus unwritten rules: The role of rule formalization in green tape. International Public Management Journal, 16(3), 331–356.
27.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1179–1206.
28.
DesaiR. M.OlofsgårdA.YousefT. M. (2009). The logic of authoritarian bargains. Economics & Politics, 21(1), 93–125.
29.
DestlerK. 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.
30.
FaveroN.BullockJ. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: An evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285–308.
31.
FlemingC. J. (2020). Prosocial rule breaking at the street level: The roles of leaders, peers, and bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 22(8), 1191–1216.
32.
FukuyamaF. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the industrial revolution to the globalization of democracy. Macmillan.
33.
GaricanoL. (2000). Hierarchies and the organization of knowledge in production. Journal of Political Economy, 108(5), 874–904.
34.
GassnerD.GofenA. (2018). Street-level management: A clientele-agent perspective on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 551–568.
35.
GelmanV. (2010). The dynamics of subnational authoritarianism: (Russia in comparative perspective). Russian Politics & Law, 48(2), 7–26.
36.
GofenA. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493.
37.
GuyerS. (2013). Above and beyond bureaucracy: Examining the association between motivation and prosocial behavior in the United States border patrol. Haverford College.
38.
HallR. H.JohnsonN. J.HaasE. J. (1967). Organizational size, complexity, and formalization. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 903–912.
39.
HallidayS.BurnsN.HuttonN.McNeillF.TataC. (2009). Street-level bureaucracy, interprofessional relations, and coping mechanisms: A study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process. Law and Policy, 31(4), 405–428.
40.
HaynesL. C.GreenD. P.GallagherR.JohnP.TorgersonD. J. (2013). Collection of delinquent fines: An adaptive randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of alternative text messages. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), 718–730.
41.
HellmeierS.WeidmannN. B. (2020). Pulling the strings? The strategic use of pro-government mobilization in authoritarian regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 53(1), 71–108.
42.
HendersonA. C. (2013). Examining policy implementation in health care: Rule abidance and deviation in emergency medical services. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 799–809.
43.
HendersonA. C.PandeyS. K. (2013). Leadership in street-level bureaucracy: An exploratory study of supervisor-worker interactions in emergency medical services. International Review of Public Administration, 18(1), 7–23.
44.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. SAGE.
45.
HofstedeG.BondM. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.
46.
HupeP.HillM. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.
JilkeS.TummersL. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 226–238.
49.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
50.
KanterR. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
51.
KeulemansS.GroeneveldS. (2020). Supervisory leadership at the frontlines: Street-level discretion, supervisor influence, and street-level bureaucrats’ attitude towards clients. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 307–323.
52.
KimS. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.
53.
KrasK. R.PortilloS.TaxmanF. S. (2017). Managing from the middle: Frontline supervisors and perceptions of their organizational power. Law and Policy, 39(3), 215–236.
54.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
55.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary expanded ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
56.
LiuN. N.LoC. W. H.ZhanX.WangW. (2015). Campaign-style enforcement and regulatory compliance. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 85–95.
57.
LuX.XuH.WangW. (2019). Clients’ help deservingness, crowd situational stress and discretionary decision-making: An experimental study of regulatory street-level bureaucrats in China. International Public Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1661892
58.
MaroulisS. (2017). The role of social network structure in street-level innovation. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(4), 419–430.
59.
MayP. J.WinterS. C. (2009). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476.
60.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. The University of Michigan Press.
61.
McGregorD. (1960). The human side of enterprise (Vol. 21). McGraw-Hill.
62.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J. (2012). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–456.
63.
MerthaA. (2009). “Fragmented authoritarianism 2.0”: Political pluralization in the Chinese policy process. The China Quarterly, 200, 995–1012.
64.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775.
65.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2006). Creating desirable organizational characteristics: How organizations create a focus on results and managerial authority. Public Management Review, 8(1), 119–140.
66.
OberfieldZ. W. (2010). Rule following and discretion at government’s frontlines: Continuity and change during organization socialization. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 735–755.
67.
OrrK.BennettM. (2017). Relational leadership, storytelling, and narratives: Practices of local government chief executives. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 515–527.
68.
PetterJ.ByrnesP.ChoiD. L.FeganF.MillerR. (2002). Dimensions and patterns in employee empowerment: Assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 377–400.
69.
PortilloS. (2012). The paradox of rules: Rules as resources and constraints. Administration & Society, 44(1), 87–108.
70.
PortilloS.DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Gender and organizational rule abidance. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 339–347.
71.
ProttasJ. M. (1978). The power of the street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 13(3), 285–312.
72.
RaaphorstN. (2018). How to prove how to interpret and what to do? Uncertainty experiences of street-level tax officials. Public Management Review, 20(4), 485–502.
73.
ReshW. G.PittsD. W. (2013). No solutions, only trade-offs? Evidence about goal conflict in street-level bureaucracies. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 132–142.
74.
RiccucciN. M. (2005). How management matters: Street-level bureaucrats and welfare reform. Georgetown University Press.
75.
RiccucciN. M.MeyersM. K.LurieI.HanJ. S. (2004). The implementation of welfare reform policy: The role of public managers in front-line practices. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 438–448.
76.
SchwarzN.BlessH.StrackF.KlumppG.Rittenauer-SchatkaH.SimonsA. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195–202.
77.
ScottP. G. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(1), 35–57.
78.
SekerkaL. E.ZolinR. (2007). Rule-bending: Can prudential judgment affect rule compliance and values in the workplace?Public Integrity, 9(3), 225–243.
79.
SimonH. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 125–134.
80.
SimonH. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Free Press.
81.
SteinbergD. A.ShihV. C. (2012). Interest group influence in authoritarian states: The political determinants of Chinese exchange rate policy. Comparative Political Studies, 45(11), 1405–1434.
82.
ThalerR.SunsteinC. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
83.
TummersL. (2011). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 555–581.
84.
TummersL. L. (2017). The relationship between coping and job performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 150–162.
85.
TummersL. L.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (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.
86.
TummersL. L.BramS.VictorB. (2012). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies. Public Administration, 90(3), 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.02016.x
87.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
88.
WangY. (2015.). Tying the autocrat’s hands. Cambridge University Press.
WeberM. (1946). Essays in sociology (GerthH. H.MillsC. Wright, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
91.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization (HendersonA. M.ParsonsT., Trans.). Oxford University Press.
92.
WickertC.SchererA. G.SpenceL. J. (2016). Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1169–1196.
93.
YangK. (2020). Unprecedented challenges, familiar paradoxes: COVID-19 and governance in a new normal state of risks. Public Administration Review, 80, 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13248
94.
YangT. M.MaxwellT. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164–175.
95.
ZangX. (2016). Research on street-level discretion in the west: Past, present, and the future. Chinese Political Science Review, 1(4), 610–622.
96.
ZangX.MushenoM. (2017). Exploring frontline work in China. Public Administration, 95(3), 842–855.
97.
ZhanX.LoC. W. H.TangS. Y. (2014). Contextual changes and environmental policy implementation: A longitudinal study of street-level bureaucrats in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), 1005–1035.
98.
ZhangH.YangL.WalkerR.WangY. (2020). How to influence the professional discretion of street-level bureaucrats: Transformational leadership, organizational learning, and professionalization strategies in the delivery of social assistance. Public Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1805919
99.
ZhangY. (2019). Representative bureaucracy, gender congruence, and student performance in China. International Public Management Journal, 22(2), 321–342.
100.
ZhangY.LiuX.VedlitzA. (2020). Issue-specific knowledge and willingness to coproduce: The case of public security services. Public Management Review, 22(10), 1461–1488.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
