Trust has proven to be a predictor of organizational outcomes. In some cases, such as law enforcement, achieving organizational goals requires workers to be willing to risk their lives. Is there a link between street-level bureaucrats’ (SLBs) willingness to endanger their own lives for the public and their trust in their peers, managers, and the institution to which they belong? Using a national survey of 2,733 police officers in Brazil and machine-learning-based methods, we found that there is a significant link between their willingness to risk their lives for others and their trust in their peers, managers, and the institution to which they belong. Our findings indicate that while these SLBs were very willing to risk their lives for certain groups, their willingness declined sharply for others such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ)+ people and the homeless. In addition, police officers’ perceptions about discrimination, police professionalism, and organizational commitment and support are linearly linked to their willingness to risk their lives. Our findings demonstrate the important role of trust in understanding public servants’ practices in the extreme context of risking their lives for others.
AlcadipaniR. (2021). Pandemic and macho organizations: Wake-up call or business as usual?Gender, Work & Organization, 27(5), 736–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12466
2.
Al-ShehariT.AlsowailR. A. (2021). An insider data leakage detection using one-hot encoding, synthetic minority oversampling and machine learning technique. Entropy, 23(10), 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23101258
3.
AzhagusundariB.ThanamaniA. S. (2013). Feature selection based on information gain. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 2(2), 18–21.
4.
BallietD.Van LangeP. A. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363–379.
5.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1235641
6.
BelabasW.GerritsL. (2017). Going the extra mile? How street-level bureaucrats deal with the integration of immigrants. Social Policy & Administration, 51(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12184
7.
BoerN. (2020). How do citizens assess street-level Bureaucrats’ warmth and competence? A typology and test. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13217
8.
BouckaertG. (2012). Trust and public administration. Administration, 60(1), 91–115.
9.
Brazilian Forum on Public Safety (2021). Brazilian Yearbook of Public Security. ISSN 1983-7364.
10.
BrodkinE. Z. (2009). The politics and governance of workfare in the US.The New Governance and Implementation of Labour Market Policies, 139–165.
11.
BrodkinE. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), i253–i277. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093
12.
BrodkinE. Z. (2021). Street-level organizations at the front lines of crises. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1848352
13.
CárdenasS.Ramirez de la CruzE. E. (2017). Controlling administrative discretion promotes social equity? Evidence from a natural experiment. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12590
14.
CharmanS. (2020). Making sense of policing identities: The ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ in policing accounts of victimisation. Policing and Society, 30(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1601721
15.
ChaudharyA.KolheS.KamalR. (2016). An improved random forest classifier for multi-class classification. Information Processing in Agriculture, 3(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.08.002
16.
ChenT.GuestrinC. (2016). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794.
17.
ChoY. J.ParkH. (2011). Exploring the relationships among trust, employee satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Public Management Review, 13(4), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.525033
18.
ChristieN. (1986). The ideal victim. In FattahE. (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17–30). Macmillan.
19.
CohenG.CohenN. (2022). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ informal collaboration: Evidence from police officers across the jurisdictional divide. Public Management Review. 25(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1963824
20.
CohenN. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016665919
21.
CohenN. (2022). An exploratory examination of the relationship between trust and street-level bureaucrats’ willingness to risk their lives for others. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211055470
22.
CohenN.GershgorenS. (2016). The incentives of street-level bureaucrats and inequality in tax assessments.Administration & Society, 48(3), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712473984
23.
CohenN.Golan-NadirN. (2020). Why do street level bureaucrats risk themselves for others? The case of Israeli police officers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(4), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12417
24.
CohenN.HertzU. (2020). Street-level bureaucrats’ social value orientation on and off duty. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13190
25.
CohenN.BenishA.Shamriz-IlouzA. (2016). When the clients can choose: Dilemmas of street-level workers in choice-based social services.Social Service Review, 90(4), 620–646.
26.
ColquittJ. A.ScottB. A.LePineJ. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta- analytic test of their unique relationship with risk-taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
27.
ConsidineM.LewisJ. M.O'SullivanS.SolE. (2015). Getting welfare to work: Street-level governance in Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands. OUP Oxford.
28.
CordnerG. (2017). Police culture: Individual and organizational differences in police officer perspectives. Policing (Bradford, England), 40(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016-0116
29.
CrankJ. P. (2004). Understanding police culture. Routledge.
30.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022a). Playing defence: The impact of trust on the coping mechanisms of street-level bureaucrats. Public Management Review, 24(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1817532
31.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022b). ‘I have learned my lesson’: How clients’ trust betrayals shape the future ways in which street-level bureaucrats cope with their clients. Public Administration, 54(8), 1516–1541. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211061686
32.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022c). Alone in the campaign: Distrust in regulators and the coping of front-line workers. Regulation and Governance, 16(4), 1005–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12396
33.
DavidovitzM.CohenN. (2022d). Which clients inspire or reduce the trust of street-level bureaucrats?.Administration & Society, 54(8), 1516–1541.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw055
DoK. T.MoreiraJ. F. G.TelzerE. H. (2017). But is helping you worth the risk? Defining prosocial risk taking in adolescence.Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 260–271.
du PlessisC.WinterbothamS.FeinE. C.BrownlowC.du PreezJ.McKennaB.du PlessisG. (2021). I’m still in the blue family: Gender and professional identity construction in police officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 36(3), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09397-9
40.
EvansT. (2013). The moral economy of street-level service.International Political Science Association: RC32-Public Policy and Administration, 381–399.
41.
EvansT. (2016). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. Routledge.
42.
FarrellyD. (2011). Cooperation as a signal of genetic or phenotypic quality in female mate choice? Evidence from preferences across the menstrual cycle. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X532896
FushikiT. (2011). Estimation of prediction error by using K-fold cross-validation. Statistical Computation, 21(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-009-9153-8
GlowackiL.WranghamR. W. (2013). The role of rewards in motivating participation in simple warfare. Human Nature, 24(4), 444–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9178-8
48.
GofenA. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street-level divergence.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut037
49.
GofenA.LottaG. (2021). Street-level bureaucrats at the forefront of pandemic response: A comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1861421
50.
GouldnerA. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 4(4), 468–490 https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
51.
HardinR. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.
52.
HardinR. (2003). Trust in government. In BraithwaiteV.LeviM. (Eds.), In trust and governance (pp. 9–27). Russell Sage Foundation.
53.
HardinR. (2006). Trust. Polity Press.
54.
HeX.ZhaoK.ChuX. (2021). AutoML: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Knowledge Based Systems, 212, 106622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020, v. 212 .106622
55.
HendersonA. C. (2014). The critical role of SLBs in disaster and crisis. In Handbook of critical incident analysis (pp. 210–245). Routledge.
56.
HeretickD. M. (1981). Gender-specific relationships between trust-suspicion, locus of control, and psychological distress. The Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1981.9915274
57.
HosmerL. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics.Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379–403.
58.
HoyW. K.Tschannen-MoranM. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9(3), 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268469900900301
59.
IngramJ. R.TerrillW.PaolineE. A. (2018). Police culture and officer behaviour: Application of a multilevel framework. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 56(4), 780–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12192
60.
JensenD. C.PedersenL. B. (2017). The impact of empathy—Explaining diversity in street-level decision-making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw070
61.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy002
62.
KeiserL. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program.Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.
63.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz019
64.
KostrzewaD.BrzeskiR. (2018). The data dimensionality reduction in the classification process through greedy backward feature elimination. In GrucaA.CzachórskiT.HarezlakK.KozielskiS., & PiotrowskaA. (Eds.), Man-Machine interactions 5. ICMMI 2017. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (p. 659). Springer.
65.
KramerR. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
66.
LaveeE.CohenN.NoumanH. (2018). Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in street-level bureaucrats’ engagement in policy design. Public Administration, 96(2), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12402
67.
LaveeE.StrierR. (2019). Transferring emotional capital as coerced discretion: Street-level bureaucrats reconciling structural deficiencies. Public Administration, 97(4), 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12598
LewickiR. J.BunkerB. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships.Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, 114(139), 30.
70.
LewickiR. J.McAllisterD. J.BiesR. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/259288
71.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
72.
LoyensK. (2019). 23, Networks as unit of analysis in street-level bureaucracy research.Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy, 351.
73.
LuptonD.TullochJ. (2002). ‘Life would be pretty dull without risk’: Voluntary risk-taking and its pleasures. Health, Risk & Society, 42(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570220137015
MarganaL.BhogalM. S.BartlettJ. E.FarrellyD. (2019). The roles of altruism, heroism, and physical attractiveness in female mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.018
76.
MathewS.BoydR. (2011). Punishment sustains large-scale cooperation in prestate warfare.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(28), 11375–11380.
77.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
78.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272
79.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. C. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
80.
Maynard-MoodyS.PortilloS. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy theory. In DurantR. F. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American bureaucracy (pp. 252–277). Oxford University Press.
81.
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.
82.
McCauleyD. P.KuhnertK. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly, 16(2), 265–284.
83.
McNameeS.WesolikF. (2014). Heroic behavior of carnegie medal heroes: Parental influence and expectations. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20(2), 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000026
84.
NyhanR. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740022064560
85.
OberfieldZ. W. (2010). Rule following and discretion at government’s frontlines.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20(4): 735–755.
86.
OomselsP.BouckaertG. (2014). Studying interorganizational trust in public administration: A conceptual and analytical framework for administrational trust. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(4), 577–604. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576370403
PaolineE. A.MyersS. M.WordenR. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 575–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094671
89.
PedregosaF.VaroquauxG.GramfortA.MichelV.ThirionB.GriselO.BlondelM.PrettenhoferP.WeissR.DubourgV. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
90.
PollcarP. G.StrazarM.ZupanB. (2019). openTSNE: A modular Python library for t-SNE dimensionality reduction and embedding. bioRxiv.
RaaphorstN.GroeneveldS.Van de WalleS. (2018). Do tax officials use double standards in evaluating citizen-clients? A policy-capturing study among Dutch frontline tax officials. Public Administration, 96(1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12374
93.
RandD. G.EpsteinZ. G. (2014). Risking your life without a second thought: Intuitive decision-making and extreme altruism. PLOS One, 9(10), e109687.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109687
RiccucciN. M. (2005). SLBs and intrastate variation in the implementation of temporary assistance for needy families policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui005
96.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12649
RothsteinB.DietlindS. (2008). The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics, 40(4), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041508X12911362383354
99.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
100.
SagerF.ThomannE.ZollingerC.van der HeidenN.MavrotC. (2014). SLBs and new modes of governance: How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss ordinance on veterinary medicinal products. Public Management Review, 16(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841979
101.
SenghaasM.FreierC.KupkaP. (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. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12443
102.
SigmundK. (2016). The calculus of selfishness. Princeton University Press.
103.
SimnerM. L. (1971). Newborn's response to the cry of another infant. Developmental Psychology, 5(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031066
104.
SixF. (2013). Trust in regulatory relations: How new insights from trust research improve regulation theory. Public Management Review, 15(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.727461
105.
SixF. (2018). Trust in public professionals and their professions. In SearleR.NienaberA. M., & SitkinS. B. (Eds.), Routledge compendium to trust (pp. 361–375). Routledge.
106.
SixF.VerhoestK. (2017). An agenda for further research into the role of trust in regulatory regimes. In JavJ. (Ed.), Trust in regulatory regimes (Vol. 7, pp. 226–229). Edward Elgar Publishing.
107.
SønderskovK. M.DinesenP. T. (2016). Trusting the state, trusting each other? The effect of institutional trust on social trust.Political Behavior, 38, 179–202.
108.
SossJ.FordingR.C.SchramS.F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.
109.
SpinkP.LottaG.BurgosF. (2021). Institutional vulnerability and trust in public agencies: Views from both sides of the street. Governance, 34(4), 1057–1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12574
110.
StaubE. (2013). Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences. Elsevier.
111.
StaubE. (2015). The roots of goodness and resistance to evil: Inclusive caring, moral courage, altruism born of suffering, active bystandership, and heroism. Oxford University Press.
SuthaharanS. (2016). Support vector machine. In: Machine learning models and algorithms for big data classification. Integrated Series in Information Systems, 36, 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7641-3
114.
ThomannE. (2015). Is output performance all about the resources? A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of street-level bureaucrats in Switzerland. Public Administration, 93(1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12130
115.
ThomannE.RappC. (2018). Who deserves solidarity? Unequal treatment of immigrants in Swiss welfare policy delivery. Policy Studies Journal, 46(3), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12225
116.
ThomannE.van EngenN.TummersL. (2018). The necessity of discretion: A behavioral evaluation of bottom-up implementation theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy024
117.
TriversR. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755
TummersL.BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion.Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.
120.
TummersL.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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056
121.
TummersL.VermeerenB.SteijnA.BekkersV. (2012). Public professionals and policy implementation: Conceptualizing and measuring three types of role conflicts. Public Management Review, 14(2), 1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662443
122.
TylerT. R. (2003). Trust and democratic governance. In BraithwaiteV.LeviM. (Eds.), Trust and governance (pp. 269–294). Russell Sage Foundation.
123.
UslanerE. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press.
124.
UslanerE. M. (2003). Trust, democracy and governance: Can government policies influence generalized trust? In Generating social capital: Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 171–190). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
125.
Van de WalleS.BouckaertG. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019352
126.
WilkinsV. M.WengerJ. B. (2015). Street-level bureaucrats and client interaction in a just world. In HupeP.HillM., & BuffatA. (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 79–96). Policy Press.
127.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 654–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00905.x
WuJ. J.ChenY. H.ChungY. S. (2010). Trust factors influencing virtual community members: A study of transaction communities. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 1025–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.022
130.
ZandD. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and power. Oxford University Press.
