Frontline workers punish procedural slights rather than service-relevant failures

Evidence

Street-level bureaucrats develop sanctions to punish disrespect to routines of order. These sanctions are often particularly signHkant because they are invoked to affect compliance with bureaucratic order rather than to affect behavior relevant to service. For example, teachers, like policemen, have mechanisms that function to provide clues to potential troublemakers and to exclude from society (in the case of teachers, the society of the school) those whose offenses threaten the working fabric of the institution. Children who are suspended for not having a pass, arriving late to class, being absent excessively, or smoking in the bathrooms are guilty not of educational sins 14 but may find interviews terminated in the rare cases when they are not willing to conform to the (reasonable) procedures demanded of them by attorneys. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 907

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly extends the reader’s testing frame: discretion encodes order-maintenance priorities before any substantive rule is applied. — connects to: Frontline workers penalize clients who disrupt their preferred procedures. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 1103; Losing routine processing procedures makes frontline workers anxious and theatre control — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 911; Client deference is a pervasive precondition of frontline service delivery — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 269
  • SEED: Angle: ‘The Pass, Not the Test’ — how school discipline systems grade compliance mechanics rather than learning.

Broader Connections