1. bookVolume 13 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
05 Feb 2009
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

The Application of Customer Service Standards and Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Discretion in Lithuanian State Agencies

Published Online: 18 Mar 2021
Page range: 109 - 134
Received: 10 Sep 2020
Accepted: 30 Dec 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
05 Feb 2009
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The main purpose of this article is to explore how standardization of the public service provision and introduction of customer service standards affect the de facto discretion of civil servants. The study uses a qualitative case study approach. Two main research methods were used to gather data – semi-structured interview and document analysis. Analysis of the empirical data revealed that written standards only partially affect the de facto discretion of civil servants. The customer interaction standards define only a few civil servants’ actions, and do not cover all aspects of the communication between civil servants and customers. Application of written standards is flexible especially in non-typical situations. Customer service standards do not restrict the actions of civil servants when they focus on customer problems, which is especially important when dealing with socially vulnerable customers. This study explores the use of customer service standards as a public management tool. The research data can be useful for understanding and improving customer interaction standards and its practical application.

Keywords

1. Adler, Paul S., and Bryan Borys. “Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive.” Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 1 (1996): 61–89. Search in Google Scholar

2. Antonsen, Stian, Kari Skarholt, and Arne J. Ringstad. “The role of standardization in safety management – A case study of a major oil & gas company.” Safety Science Vol. 50, No. 10 (2012): 2001–2009 // https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.001. Search in Google Scholar

3. Bannink, Duco, Frédérique Six, Eelco van Wijk. “Bureaucratic, market or professional control? A theory on the relation between street-level task characteristics and the feasibility of control mechanisms”: 205-227. In: Peter Hupe, Michael Hill, and Aurèlien Buffat, eds. Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015 // https://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447313267.001.0001. Search in Google Scholar

4. Bovens, Mark, and Stavros Zouridis. “From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control.” Public Administration Review Vol. 62, No. 2 (2002): 174–184 // https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168. Search in Google Scholar

5. Bringselius, Louise. “Gaining legitimacy as a public official: The case of supportive employee attitudes to the standardization of work”. International Journal of Public Administration Vol. 35, No. 8 (2012): 544–552 // https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.661185. Search in Google Scholar

6. Brodkin, Evelyn Z., and Gregory Marston. Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

7. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. “Bureaucracy redux: Management reformism and the welfare state.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 17, No.1 (2007): 1–17 // https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj019. Search in Google Scholar

8. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. “Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 21, No. 2 (2011): 253–277 // https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093. Search in Google Scholar

9. Brunsson, Nils, Andreas Rasche, and David Seidl. “The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies.” Organization Studies Vol. 33, No. 5 (2012): 613–632 // https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612450120. Search in Google Scholar

10. Buffat, Aurélien. “Street-level bureaucracy and e-government.” Public Management Review Vol. 17, No. 1 (2015): 149–153 // https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.771699. Search in Google Scholar

11. Busch A. Peter. “The Role of Contextual Factors in the Influence of ICT on Street-Level Discretion”: 2963–2972. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017). Search in Google Scholar

12. Customer (taxpayer) service standard, 2017. State Tax Inspectorate. Search in Google Scholar

13. Denhardt, Robert B., Janet V. Denhardt, and Tara A. Blanc. Public administration: An action orientation. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

14. Evans Tony. Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. Search in Google Scholar

15. Foldy, Erica G., Tamara R. Buckley. “Re-creating street-level practice: The role of routines, work groups, and team learning.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 20, No. 1 (2010): 778–796 // https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun034. Search in Google Scholar

16. Hansen, Hans-Tore, Kjetil Lundberg, and Liv J. Syltevik. “Digitalization, Street-Level Bureaucracy and Welfare Users’ Experiences.” Social Policy & Administration Vol. 52, No. 1 (2016): 67–90 // https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12283. Search in Google Scholar

17. Hanseth, Ole, Bendik Bygstad. “Flexible generification: ICT standardization strategies and service innovation in health care.” European Journal of Information Systems Vol. 24, No. 6 (2015): 645–663 // https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2015.1. Search in Google Scholar

18. Harrits, Sommer G. “Being Professional and Being Human. Professional’s Sensemaking in the Context of Close and Frequent Interactions with Citizens.” Professions and Professionalism Vol. 6, No. 2 (2016): 1–17 // https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.1522. Search in Google Scholar

19. Harrits, Sommer G. “Street-level bureaucracy research and professionalism”: 193–209. In: Hupe Peter, ed. Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019 // https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786437631. Search in Google Scholar

20. Henman, Paul, and Mitchell Dean. “E-government and the production of standardized individuality”: 77–93. In: Higgins Vaughan and Larner Wendy, eds. Calculating the social: Standards and the reconfiguration of governing. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010 // https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289673. Search in Google Scholar

21. Higgins, Vaughan, and Wendy Larner. “From Standardization to Standardizing Work”: 1–17. In: Higgins Vaughan and Larner Wendy, eds. Calculating the social: Standards and the reconfiguration of governing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 // https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289673. Search in Google Scholar

22. Hupe, Peter, Michael Hill, and Aurélien Buffat, eds. Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015 // https://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447313267.001.0001. Search in Google Scholar

23. Hupe, Peter, and Michael Hill. “Street-level Bureaucracy and Public Accountability.” Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 2 (2007): 279–299 // https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00650.x. Search in Google Scholar

24. Hupe, Peter. “Dimensions of Discretion: Specifying the Object of Street-level Bureaucracy Research.” Der Moderne Staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management Vol. 6, No.2 (2013): 425–440. Search in Google Scholar

25. Lampland, Martha, Susan L. Star. Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 2009. Search in Google Scholar

26. Lipsky, Michael. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation, 1980. Search in Google Scholar

27. Lipsky, Michael. Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. Russell Sage Foundation, 2010. Search in Google Scholar

28. Maynard-Moody, Steven, and Michael Musheno. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Narratives of Street-Level Judgment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2003. Search in Google Scholar

29. Mik-Meyer, Nanna. The power of citizens and professionals in welfare encounters: The influence of bureaucracy, market and psychology. Manchester University Press, 2017. Search in Google Scholar

30. Mintzberg, Henry. “Structure in 5’s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design.” Management Science Vol. 26, No.3 (1980): 322–341 // https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322. Search in Google Scholar

31. Nissinboim, Noa, and Eitan Naveh. “Process standardization and error reduction: A revisit from a choice approach.” Safety Science Vol. 103 (2018): 43–50// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.015. Search in Google Scholar

32. Noordegraaf, Mirko. “Risky business: how professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues.” Organization Studies Vol. 32, No. 10 (2011): 1349–1371 // https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611416748. Search in Google Scholar

33. Nygaard, Pål. “Professional autonomy versus corporate control.” Professions and Professionalism Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012): 11–26 // https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v2i1.164. Search in Google Scholar

34. Ortmann, Günther. “On drifting rules and standards.” Scandinavian Journal of Management Vol. 26, No. 2 (2010): 204–214 // https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2010.02.004. Search in Google Scholar

35. Perminienė, Leonilija. “Social insurance – guarantee to the future. Tax news” (March 2006) // http://www.mzinios.lt/lt/2006-03-31/straipsniai/temide/socialinis_draudimas_garantija_ateiciai.html. Search in Google Scholar

36. Pors, Anja S. “Becoming digital – passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy.” Journal of Organizational Ethnography Vol. 4, No. 2 (2015): 177–192 // https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-08-2014-0031. Search in Google Scholar

37. Regarding the approval of quality standards of mediation in employment and consultation service provision and the main customer service rules. State Employment Agency. 2013 TAR. No. 11322DBISAK000V-197 // https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.446904?jfwid=rivwzvpvg. Search in Google Scholar

38. Regarding the approval of the customer service standard of the State Social Insurance Fund administration institutions, 2010. State Social Security Agency. Search in Google Scholar

39. Regarding the approval of the customer service standard of the State Social Insurance Fund administration institutions, 2014. State Social Security Agency. Search in Google Scholar

40. Regarding the approval of the customer service standard of the State Social Security Agency institutions, 2013. State Social Security Agency. Search in Google Scholar

41. Regarding the approval of the description of employment market service provision and order. State Employment Agency. 2009 TAR. No. 1092230ISAK00A1-476 // https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.350730?jfwid=q8i88m7to. Search in Google Scholar

42. Regarding the approval of the United style handbook, 2005. State Social Security Agency. Search in Google Scholar

43. Regarding the methodological recommendations of tax-payer servicing in the State Tax Inspectorate. State Tax Inspectorate. 2005 LAR. No. 1052055ISAK000VA-77 // https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.266670?jfwid=dgaa1vusg. Search in Google Scholar

44. Riccucci, Norma M. How Management Matters: Street-Level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2005. Search in Google Scholar

45. Røhnebæk, Maria. “Standardized Flexibility: The Choreography of ICT in Standardization of Service Work.” Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research Vol. 4, No.4 (2012): 679–698 // https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.124679. Search in Google Scholar

46. Schuppan, Tino. “Service workers on the electronic leash? Street-level bureaucrats in the emerging information and communication technology work contexts”: 243–261. In: Hupe Peter and Hill Michael, eds. Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

47. Timmermans, Stefan, and Steven Epstein. “A world of standards but not a standard world: toward a sociology of standards and standardization.” Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 36 (2010): 69–89 // https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629. Search in Google Scholar

48. Tummers, Lars, and Victor Bekkers. “Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion.” Public Management Review Vol. 16, No. 4 (2014): 527–547 // https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841978. Search in Google Scholar

49. Vedung, Evert. “Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies.” Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy Vol. 1, No. 2 (2015): 15–19 // https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28643. Search in Google Scholar

50. Wallace, John, and Bob Pease. “Neoliberalism and Australian social work: Accommodation or resistance?” Journal of Social Work Vol. 11, No. 2 (2015): 132–142 // https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017310387318. Search in Google Scholar

51. Wastell, David, Barbara S. White, Matt K. Broadhurst, Sue Peckover, and Andrew Pithouse. “Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Švejkism.” International Journal of Social Welfare Vol.19, No. 3 (2010): 310–320 // https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo