Workers defend control routines as necessary and resist abandoning them.
Evidence
These procedures may work effectively to help street-level bureaucrats gain control over clients in settings that are not otherwise secure. Certainly they believe that such procedures are necessary for effective performance and would be most reluctant to abandon them. Yet there are some good reasons to think that these control routines help to create a client population that in unknown ways is different from the one that would exist in the absence of these protective devices. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 902
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Street-level workers actively resist managerial attempts to restrict their discretion — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 189; Workers resist reform because it threatens routines that make the job bearable. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 843; Work-control needs turn frontline workers into defenders of the status quo. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 1329 (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Work-control needs turn frontline workers into defenders of the status quo.
#corroborates(0.95) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 1329 - Workers resist procedural change because it threatens coping routines, not novelty
#expands(0.90) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 843 - Frontline workers defend discretionary sanctions because those sanctions sustain control
#expands(0.85) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 909 - Workers resist management rationing only when it threatens their own preferred practice
#expands(0.80) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 729