Despite an upsurge of red tape research, a central issue remains unresolved. The most widely used red tape measures draw on key informant reports about red tape. The starkest objection to such measures is that key informant reports are mere perceptions—perceptions that are subject to distortion. We assess the validity of key informant perception-based measures of personnel red tape by using “anchoring vignettes.” Findings suggest that anchoring vignettes can be used to improve the accuracy of survey measures of red tape. Implications of findings for red tape scholarship and survey measurement in public management are discussed.
ApfelJ. (2013). Understanding motivations of sector switchers. Public Organization Review, 13(3), 291-304.
2.
BaldwinJ. N. (1990). Perceptions of public vs. private sector personnel and informal red tape: Their impact on motivation. American Review of Public Administration, 20, 7-28.
3.
BozemanB. (1993). A theory of government red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 273-303.
4.
BozemanB. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BozemanB. (2012). Multidimensional red tape: A theory coda. International Public Management Journal, 15, 245-265.
6.
BozemanB.FeeneyM. K. (2011). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration theory and research. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
7.
BozemanB.ReedP.ScottP. (1992). Red tape and task delays in public and private organizations. Administration & Society, 24, 290-322.
8.
BozemanB.ScottP. (1996). Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: Untangling conceptual knots. American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 1-17.
9.
BretschneiderS. I. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50, 536-545.
10.
BretschneiderS. I.ChenX.WuL.QiaoX. (2012, June27-29). A new approach to measuring red tape from survey data: Controlling for perceptions of formalization. Paper presented at the International Public Management Network Conference, Honolulu, HI.
11.
BrewerG. A.WalkerR. (2010). The impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 233-257.
12.
BuchananB. (1975). Red-tape and the service ethic: Some unexpected differences between public and private managers. Administration & Society, 6, 423-444.
13.
CourseyD. H.PandeyS. K. (2007). Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 342-361.
14.
DeHart-DavisL. (2009). Green tape: A theory of effective organizational rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 361-384.
15.
DeHart-DavisL.ChenJ.LittleT. D. (2013). Written versus unwritten rules: The role of rule formalization in green tape. International Public Management Journal, 16, 331-356.
16.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
17.
DimockM. (1952). Bureaucracy self-explained. In MertonR. K.GrayA. P.HockeyB.SelvinH. C. (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy (pp. 397-406). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
18.
FeeneyM. K. (2012). Organizational red tape: A measurement experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 427-444.
19.
FeeneyM. K.BozemanB. (2009). Stakeholder red tape: Comparing perceptions of public managers and their private consultants. Public Administration Review, 69, 710-726.
20.
FeeneyM. K.RaineyH. G. (2010). Personnel flexibility and red tape in public and nonprofit organizations: Distinctions due to institutional and political accountability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 801-826.
21.
GianakisG.WangX. (2000). Decentralization of the purchasing function in municipal government: A national survey. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 12, 421-440.
22.
GouldnerA. (1952). Red tape as a social problem. In MertonR. K.GrayA. P.HockeyB.SelvinH. C. (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy (pp. 410-418). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
23.
Grol-ProkopczykH.FreeseJ.HauserR. M. (2011). Using anchoring vignettes to assess group differences in general self-rated health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52, 246-261.
HamidullahM. F.RiccucciN. M.PandeyS. K. (2015). Women in city hall: Gender dimensions of managerial values. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 247-262. doi: 10.1177/0275074013498464
26.
HopkinsD. J.KingG. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 201-222.
27.
KaufmanH. (1977). Red tape: Its origins, uses, and abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
28.
KelmanS. (2008). The “Kennedy School School” of research on innovation in government. In BorinsS. (Ed.), Innovations in government: Research, recognition, and replication (pp. 28-52). Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
29.
KingG.MurrayC. J. L.SalomonJ. A.TandonA. (2004). Enhancing the validity of cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98, 191-207.
30.
KingG.WandJ. (2007). Comparing incomparable survey responses: Evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis, 15, 46-66.
31.
LeeG.Benoit-BryanJ.JohnsonT. P. (2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 87-97.
32.
LutonL. S. (2007). Deconstructing public administration empiricism. Administration & Society, 39, 527-544.
33.
MertonR. K. (1952). Bureaucratic structure and personality. In MertonR. K.GrayA. P.HockeyB.SelvinH. C. (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy (pp. 361-371). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
34.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40-53.
35.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 849-866.
36.
MoynihanD. P.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2012). Prosocial values and performance management theory: The link between perceived social impact and performance information use. Governance. 25(3): 463-483.
37.
MoynihanD. P.WrightB. E.PandeyS. K. (2012). Working within constraints: Can transformational leaders alter the experience of red tape?International Public Management Journal, 15, 315-336.
38.
PandeyS. K. (1995). Managerial perceptions of red tape (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, NY.
39.
PandeyS. K.BretschneiderS. I. (1997). The impact of red tape’s administrative delay on public organizations’ interest in new information technologies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 113-130.
40.
PandeyS. K.CourseyD. H.MoynihanD. P. (2007). Organizational effectiveness and bureaucratic red tape: A multi-method study. Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 398-425.
41.
PandeyS. K.KingsleyG. A. (2000). Examining red tape in public private organizations: Alternative explanations from a social psychological model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 779-799.
42.
PandeyS. K.MoynihanD. P. (2006). Bureaucratic red tape and organizational performance: Testing the moderating role of culture and political support. In BoyneG. A.MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.WalkerR. M. (Eds.), Public service performance (pp. 130-151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
PandeyS. K.ScottP. G. (2002). Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 553-580.
44.
PandeyS. K.WelchE. W. (2005). Beyond stereotypes: A multistage model of managerial perceptions of red tape. Administration & Society, 37, 542-575.
45.
QuratulainS.KhanA. K. (2013). Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: Testing a model of moderated mediation. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0734371X13511646
46.
RaineyH. G. (1979). Perceptions of incentives in business and government: Implications for civil service reform. Public Administration Review, 39, 440-448.
47.
RaineyH. G. (1983). Public agencies and private firms. Administration & Society, 15, 207-242.
48.
RaineyH. G.PandeyS. K.BozemanB. (1995). Research note: Public and private managers perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55, 567-574.
49.
RiceN.RoboneS.SmithP. C. (2010). International comparison of public sector performance: The use of anchoring vignettes to adjust self-reported data. Evaluation, 16, 81-101.
50.
SelznickP. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
StazykE. C.PandeyS. K.WrightB. E. (2011). Understanding affective organizational commitment the importance of institutional context. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 603-624.
52.
ThompsonV. (1961). Modern organization. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
53.
TourangeauR.RipsL. J.RasinskiK. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54.
WaldoD. (1946). Government by procedure. In MarxF. M. (Ed.), Elements of public administration (pp. 381-399). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
55.
WalkerR. M.BrewerG. A. (2008). An organizational echelon analysis of the determinants of red tape in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 68, 1112-1127.
56.
WalkerR. M.BrewerG. A. (2009). Can management strategy minimize the impact of red tape on organizational performance?Administration & Society, 41, 423-448.
57.
WelchE. W.PandeyS. K. (2007). E-Government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 379-404.
58.
WrightB.GrantA. M. (2010). Unanswered questions about public service motivation: Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Administration Review, 70, 691-700.
59.
WrightB. E.PandeyS. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 75-89.
60.
YangK.PandeyS. K. (2009). How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 335-360.
61.
ZammutoR. F.KrakowerJ. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 83-114.
