What are the prospects of remote work—working from home—in the context of street-level bureaucratic work? This article explores how remote work relates to performance in public service settings. Focusing on the push toward remote work induced by the COVID-19 pandemic and using survey responses from Danish frontline workers (n = 1,578) in two types of public service organizations, we find that remote work is associated with a loss in self-reported performance. The loss is greater for frontline workers in people-changing relative to people-processing organizations—and appears driven by lacking motivation, work tools, and coworker interactions.
AntonakisJ.AtwaterL. (2017). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Perspectives, 13(6), 129–160.
2.
AntonakisJ.FenleyM.LiechtiS. (2012). Learning Charisma. Transform yourself into the person others want to follow. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 127–130.
3.
AppelbaumE.BaileyT.BergP.KallebergA. L.BaileyT. A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.
4.
AwanS.GermàB.EsteveM. (2020). The benefits of PSM: An oasis or a mirage?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 619–635.
5.
BarreroJ. M.BloomN.DavisS. J. (2021). Why working from home will stick (National Bureau of Economic Research w28731). National Bureau of Economic Research.
6.
BassB.RiggioR. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Taylor and Francis.
7.
BechL. S. (2015). The relationship between caseworkers and unemployed workers [Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis]. School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University.
8.
BelléN. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 143–153.
9.
BelléN. (2014). Leading to make a difference: A field experiment on the performance effects of transformational leadership, perceived social impact, and public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 109–136.
10.
BloomN.LiangJ.RobertsJ.YingZ. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218.
11.
BorstR. T. (2018). Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service providers: A mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 287–313.
12.
BrodkinE. Z. (2021). Street-level organizations at the front lines of crises. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(1), 16–29.
13.
CaillierJ. G. (2012). The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a US federal government agency. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 461–480.
14.
ChengX.YinGAzadeganA.KolfschotenG. (2016). Trust evolvement in hybrid team collaboration: A longitudinal case study. Group Decisions and Negotiation, 25(2), 267–288.
15.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679.
16.
ChristensenP. H. (2015). Distance i arbejdslivet [Distance in the worklife]. Samfundslitteratur.
DeciE. L.OlafsenA. H.RyanR. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43.
19.
DvirT.EdenD.AvolioB. J.ShamirB. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–744.
20.
EdwardsJ. R.ShippA. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In OstroffC.JudgeT. A. (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209–258). Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
EmanuelN.HarringtonE. (2021). ‘Working’ remotely? Selection, treatment, and market provision of remote work. Harvard Job Market Paper.
22.
FengJ.LazarJ.PreeceJ. (2004). Empathy and online interpersonal trust: A fragile relationship. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 97–106.
23.
GagnéM.DeciE. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
24.
GibsonC. B.CohenS. G. (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
25.
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.
26.
GrantA. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.
27.
GrantA. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124.
28.
GrodalS.NelsonA. J.SiinoR. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136–168.
29.
GuulT. S.PedersenM. J.PetersenN. B. G. (2021). Creaming among caseworkers: Effects of client competence and client motivation on caseworkers’ willingness to help. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 12–22.
30.
HainesE. L.DeauxK.LofaroN. (2016). The times they are a-changing. . .Or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353–363.
31.
HasenfeldY. (1972). People processing organizations: An exchange approach. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 256–263.
32.
HuberM.LechnerM.MellaceG. (2017). Why do tougher caseworkers increase employment? The role of program assignment as a causal mechanism. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(1), 180–183.
33.
HupeP.HillM. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.
JudgeT. A.ZhangS. C.GlerumD. R. (2020). Job satisfaction. In SemaV. I.BowingN. A. (Eds.), Essentials of job attitudes and other workplace psychological constructs (pp. 207–241). Routledge.
36.
KellnerA.CafferkeyK.TownsendK. (2019). Ability, motivation and opportunity theory: A Formula for employee performance? In TownsendK.CafferkeyK.McDermottA. M.DundonT. (Eds.), Elgar introduction to theories of human resources and employment relations (pp. 311–323). Edward Elgar Publishing.
37.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
38.
KjeldsenA. M. (2014). Dynamics of public service motivation: Attraction-selection and socialization in the production and regulation of social services. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 101–112.
39.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
40.
LagerströmJ. (2011). How important are caseworkers-and why? New evidence from Swedish employment offices (No. 2011: 10). Working Paper. The Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation.
41.
LathamG. P.LockeE. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300.
42.
LeisinkP. L. M.SteijnB. (2009). Public service motivation and job performance of public sector employees in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1), 35–52.
43.
LindseyL. L. (2010). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (5th ed.). Pearson.
44.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation.
45.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.
46.
MetselaarS. A.den DulkL.VermeerenB. (2023). Teleworking at different locations outside the office: Consequences for perceived performance and the mediating role of autonomy and work-life balance satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(3), 456–478.
PaarlbergL. E.LavignaB. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 710–718.
53.
PedersenM. J. (2015). Activating the forces of public service motivation: Evidence from a low-intensity randomized survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 734–746.
54.
PedersenM. J.StritchJ. M. (2018). RNICE model: Evaluating the contribution of replication studies in public administration and management research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 606–612.
55.
PedersenM. J.StritchJ. M.ThuesenF. (2018). Punishment on the frontlines of public service delivery: Client ethnicity and caseworker sanctioning decisions in a scandinavian welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 339–354.
PerryJ. L.HondeghemA. (2008). Building theory and empirical evidence about public service motivation. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 3–12.
58.
PerryJ. L.WiseL. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373.
59.
PetersenN. B. G.LaumannT. V.JakobsenM. (2019). Acceptance or disapproval: Performance information in the eyes of public frontline employees. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(1), 101–117.
RaffertyA. E.GriffinM. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154–1162.
63.
RosenB.FurstS.BlackburnR. (2007). Overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259–273.
SalisS.WilliamsA. M. (2010). Knowledge sharing through face-to-face communication and labour productivity: Evidence from British workplaces. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 436–459.
66.
Van LoonN. M. (2017). Does context matter for the type of performance-related behavior of public service motivated employees?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(4), 405–429.
67.
Van LoonN. M.KjeldsenA. M.AndersenL. B.VandenabeeleW.LeisinkP. (2018). Only when the societal impact potential is high? A panel study of the relationship between public service motivation and perceived performance. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(2), 139–166.
68.
Van LoonN. M.LeisinkP.VandenabeeleW. (2013). Talking the talk of public service motivation: How public organization logics matter for employees’ expressions of PSM. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(14), 1007–1019.
69.
Van LoonN. M.VandenabeeleW.LeisinkP. (2015). On the bright and dark side of public service motivation: The relationship between PSM and employee wellbeing. Public Money & Management, 35(5), 349–356.
70.
Van WartM.RomanA.WangX.LiuC. (2017). Integrating ICT adoption issues into (E-) leadership theory. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 527–537.
71.
VogelD.HombergF. (2021). P-hacking, p-curves, and the PSM–performance relationship: Is there evidential value?Public Administration Review, 81(2), 191–204.
72.
VogelD.WillemsJ. (2020). The effects of making public service employees aware of their prosocial and societal impact: A microintervention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 485–503.
73.
VoorbergW. H.BekkersV. J . J. M.TummersL. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Revie, 17(9), 1333–1357.
74.
WalkerR. M.BrewerG. A.LeeM. J.PetrovskyN.WitteloostuijnA. V. (2019). Best practice recommendations for replicating experiments in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 609–626.
75.
WiederholdB. K. (2020). Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding ‘zoom fatigue.’Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 23(7), 437–438.
76.
WilsonJ. M.StrausS. G.McEvilyB. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16–33.
77.
WinterS. C. (2012). Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public administration (pp. 265–278). Sage.
78.
WrightB. E.PandeyS. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person-organization fit. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502–521.
79.
YangF.HuangX.LiZ. (2022). Gender, situational visibility, and discretionary decision-making of regulatory street-level bureaucrats under pandemic emergency: An experimental study in China. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1312–1329.
80.
ZillmerE.SpiersM.CulbertsonW. C. (2001). Principles of neuropsychology. Wadsworth Pub. Co.
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.
